Karnataka High Court
Smt.Radha vs Sri Puttaswamy on 12 February, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8739
WP No. 4579 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4579 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.RADHA
EX. W/O PUTTASWAMY (DIVORCED)
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 209
2. HARSHAVARDHANA.P
S/O PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3. KUMARI. NAYANA.P
D/O PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
Digitally signed
RESIDING AT NO. 209,
by BHARATH HOUSE CO-OPERATIVE
SHARADAVANI
B SOCIETY LAYOUT, 4TH CROSS,
Location: High
Court of BHBCS UTTARAHALLY,
Karnataka
WARD NO.55, PADMANABHANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KAMALESHWARA POOJARY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI PUTTASWAMY
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8739
WP No. 4579 of 2026
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT FRONT SIDE
OF NAYANA NILAYA,
BEHIND SHAN TALKIES,
KUVEMPU NAGARA,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562 159.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRADEEEP NAIK.K., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
RAMANAGARA IN FDP NO. 5/2024 (IN O.S.NO.170/2015 AND
O.S.NO.300/2018) ON I.A.NO.21 DATED 24.01.2026 UNDER
SECTION 151 OF CPC AS PER ANNEXURE- A; B) DIRECTING
THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
RAMANAGARA IN FDP.NO.5/2024 TO ACCEPT THE MEMO OF
CALCULATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE
-H, ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8739
WP No. 4579 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the respondents in F.D.P.No.5 of 2024 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.21, whereby the said application filed by the respondents under Section 151 CPC was allowed by the Trial Court.
2. Heard Sri.Kamaleshwara Poojary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Pradeep Naik.K., learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the earlier round of litigation, arising out of O.S.No. 170 of 2015 and O.S.No.300 of 2018 in W.P.No.2725 of 2023, a compromise was entered into between the parties, which culminated in a compromise decree as hereunder:
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT RAMANAGARA O.S. No.170/2015 And O.S. No.300/2018 -4- NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR WRIT PETITION NO. 2725 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
Petitioner: 1. Smt. Radha, Ex wife of Puttaswamy (Divorced), Aged about 52 years,
2. Harshavardhana P, S/o Puttaswamy, Aged about 32 years,
3. Kumari. Nayana P, D/o Putaswamy, Aged about 27 years, Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 are R/at No.209, Bharath House Co-Operative Society Layout, 4th Cross, BHBCS Uttarahalli, Ward No.55, Padmanabhanagar, Bangalore - 560 061. -
Vs. Respondent: Sri. Puttaswamy, S/o Venkatappa Aged about 60 years, R/at Narayana Nilaya, Behind Shan Takis, Kuvempu Nagara, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District - 562 159.
O.S. 170/2015OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., RAMANAGARA Plaintiff : Sri. Puttaswamy, S/o Venkatappa, Aged about 54 years, R/at Nayana Nilaya, Behind Shan Takis, Kuvempu Nagara, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District - 562 159 -5- NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR Defendant: 1.Smt. Radha W/o Puttaswamy Aged about 42 years,
2. Harshawardhan S/o Puttaswamy Aged about 25 years,
3. Kumari Nayana. P D/o Puttaswamy Aged about 21 years, All Are Residing No. 209, Bharath House, Co-Operative Society Layout, 4th Cross, BHBCS Uttarhalli, Ward No.55, Padmanabhanagara, Bangalore-560 061.
OS 300/2018OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., RAMANAGARA Plaintiff: 1. Master Harshawardhan (Physically Disabled) S/o Puttaswamy Aged About 28 Years, Represented By His Natural Guardian/Mother Smt. Radha W/o Puttaswamy Aged About 47 Years,
2. Kumari Nayana. P D/o Puttaswamy Aged About 23 Years, Represented By her GPA Holder Smt. Radha W/o Puttaswamy Aged About 47 Years, Both are R/at No.209, Bharath House, Co-Operative Society Layout, BHBCS, Uttarahalli, Ward No.55 Padmanabhanagar, Bengaluru-61 -6- NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR Defendant:
Sri. Puttaswamy S/o Venkatappa Aged About 57 Years, Residing at Ground Floor, Nayananilaya Behind Kuvempu Nagar Ramanagara Taluk Ramanagara Dist.-562159 DECREE The writ petition is filed before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. against the order of this court dated 10.10.2022 passed on I.A.No.10 in O.S. No.170/2015, rejecting permission sought to sell suit schedule 'A' property. The suit is one for partition and to declare that the gift deed dated 30.08.2014 is not binding on the plaintiff.
The matter was referred to Mediation appointing Sri. N.Prashanth Chandra as learned Mediator. The Mediation Report is filed and it discloses that the parties have settled their dispute by entering into compromise, The Writ petition is coming on 20-09-2023 for final disposal before The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.G. Pandit, the petitioners and their advocate Sri. Kamaleshwara Poojary and respondent and his advocate Sri. Pradeep Naik.K are present before the court and identified by their advocates.
The compromise entered into between the parties reads as follows:
This Hon'ble Court while considering the matter on its merits, was pleased to direct the parties to explore amicable settlement by mediation mechanism. Accordingly, the parties appeared before the Mediator on several dates and have arrived at an amicable solution, the terms and -7- NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR conditions of which are reduced into the writing as below:
(i) The plaintiff is the former husband of the st 1 defendant. Their marriage has been dissolved by a judgment & decree of divorce dated 17/06/2022 granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.9688 of 2018(FC).
(ii) The 2nd defendant is the son and the 3rd defendant is the daughter of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. This settlement is arrived mainly to protect the interest, welfare and future of children, i.e. 2nd & 3rd defendants.
(iii) The parties hereby agree, declare and confirm that the plaintiff (Sri Puttaswamy) shall be entitled to 30% (Thirty percent only) undivided share right, title and interest in the schedule "A" and "B" properties in OS No.170/2015 and OS No.300/2018, pending before the Civil Judge (JD) & JMFC, at Ramanagara.
(iv) The parties hereby agree, declare and confirm that the plaintiff (Sri. Puttaswamy) shall be entitled to 30% (Thirty percent only) undivided share right, title and interest in the schedule "A" and "B" properties in OS No. 170/2015 and OS No.300/2018.
(v) Presently, the plaintiff is in occupation of ground floor of schedule "A" property; the remaining portion of the schedule "A" property and the entire schedule "B" property are in occupation of different tenants under different lease and rent agreements executed by the 1st defendant. The total lease amount is 22,50,000/- and advance amount is Rupees 60,000/- in total liability is Rs.23,10,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Ten Thousand only). The plaintiff and the defendants -8- NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR shall share the liabilities in the same ratio i.e., 30:70 on the amount payable to the tenants.
(vi) Providing education, security, upbringing and conducting of the marriages of the 2nd further agree, declare & the defendants shall be remaining 70% (Seventy undivided share rights, title in the schedule A and B & 3rd defendants shall be the sole responsibility of the defendants. It is always open to the plaintiff/father to contribute any financial support to the children, as & when he deems necessary.
(vii) The parties, therefore, have agreed to put the schedule A and B properties for sale and share the sale proceeds at 30:70 ratio, between the plaintiff and the defendants, respectively.
(viii) That both the unmarried children of plaintiff and 1st defendant i.e., defendants no.2 and 3 are in the care and custody of 1st defendant and the very purpose of this settlement would be to protect the interest of the children of plaintiff and 1st defendant.
(ix) The parties shall co-operate with each other for securing the best price for the schedule "A" and "B" properties for which the plaintiff hereby undertakes to voluntarily vacate the ground floor of schedule A property, in his possession, on or before 31st January 2024 and to handover one set of key to the 1st defendant for the smooth completion of sale formalities.
(x) The schedule B property is under the mortgage to State Bank of India, Ramanagar Branch, Ramanagara. The said whole liability of State Bank of India, Ramanagar Branch, with accrued interest upto full payment shall be shared by the plaintiff and defendants at the ratio of 30:70 respectively.
-9-NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR
(xi) In consideration of the above, (subject to the satisfaction of the above conditions) the defendants shall not press C.Misc.392 of 2019 pending on the file of Addl. Principal Family Court, Bangalore. The defendants declare and confirm that they shall not claim any maintenance against the plaintiff for either past, present and in future. The defendants under take to withdraw C.Misc.392 of 2019, by filing necessary memo.
(xii) The plaintiff and the 1st defendant declare and confirm that they have no claim of whatsoever nature against each other either for the past, present and in future.
(xiii) The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are living separately since the year 2014 and they continue to live separately. They undertake & confirm that they shall not interfere with the privacy life of each other and the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are free to take their own decision in future.
(xiv) The parties assure to co-operate in the proceedings in CC No.16 of 2015 pending before the appropriate Court of Law, (subject to the satisfaction of the above conditions) for passing appropriate orders, in the light of the above amicable settlement.
(xv) The parties hereby withdraw all allegations, accusations and complaints made against each other.
(xvi) The parties declare and confirm that the above amicable settlement is in their best interest. And further that there has been no coercion, fraud or mis-representation in arriving at the above settlement.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR (xvii) That both the plaintiff and 1st defendant have agreed to share the proceeds under the LIC policy bearing No.361340554 equally.
(xviii) The parties pray that the suits OS No.170/2015 and OS No.300/2018, pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Ramanagara, be decreed in terms of the above amicable settlement.
(xix) The plaintiff has agreed to pay the LIC amount of Rs.45,000.00/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) (Policy was purchased jointly in the name of Plaintiff and his son) at the time of handing over the key of his possession of the suit Schedule "A" Property as stated supra to the 1st Defendant on or before 31st January, 2024.
Wherefore, the parties pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to record & dispose of the petition in terms of the memorandum of settlement.
It is ordered and decreed that In terms of the compromise, the writ petition stands disposed of and O.S.No.170/2015 and O.S.No.300/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge (JD) & JMFC, Ramanagara, are also decreed.
(Given under my sign and seal of this court on this the 27th day of April 2024) Sd/-
Addl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Ramanagara.
Suit schedule Property in O.S.170/2015 SCHEDULE A All that piece and parcel of house property comprising of two residential houses in ground and two floors, bearing Khaneshumary No.133/ 118/ 1377/52, measuring East-West- towards South 58
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR fee North-South: 30 feet situated at Bettada Thappalu Ijoor, Ramanagara Town, bounded on: -
East by : 15 feet Road West by : Road North by : Dasegowda's House South by : Site of Smt. P.S. Vishalakshi SCHEDULE B All that piece and parcel of house property comprising of two residential Houses in ground, first floors, bearing No. old Muinicipal Khatha No. 6367/3061 later 1506/1454 presently new Municipal No.176/1454 situated at North Extension, II Stage, Ward No.3 Ramanagar Town, measuring East-West: 35 feet and North-South: 50 feet, totally measuring 1760sqft comprising of 2 floors and bounded on:
East by : Property of Shankarappa West by : Property of A.V. Venkatappa, North by : Municipal Road, South by : Property of A.K. Abdul Sammadh Suit schedule Property in O.S.300/2018 SCHEDULE A All that piece and parcel of house property in first floor double bed room two residential houses, 2nd Floor double bed room two residential houses and in 3rd Floor one bed room residential houses in the property bearing Khaneshumary No.133/ 118/ 1377/52, measuring East to West towards north 50 feet and East to West towards South 58 feet, North to South 30 feet situated at Bettada Thappalu Ijoor, Ramanagara Town, bounded as follows:
East by : 15 feet Road, West by : Road North by : Dasegowda's House,
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR South by : Site of Smt. P.S. Vishalakshi SCHEDULE B All that piece and parcel of house property comprising of two residential Houses in ground floor 3BHK house and first floor double bed room, bearing old Muinicipal Khatha No.6367/3061 later 1506/1454 presently new Municipal No. 176/1454 situated at North Extension, II Stage, Ward No.3 Ramanagar Town, measuring East to West 35 feet and North to South 50 feet, comprising two floors building, totally measuring 1750 sq. feet and bounded on:
East by : Property of Shankarappa West by : Property of A.V. Venkatappa, North by : Municipal Road, South by : Property of A.K. Abdul Sammadh
4. Subsequently, the respondent herein instituted final decree proceedings in F.D.P.No.5 of 2024. In the instant F.D.P.No.5 of 2024, application I.A.No.17 filed by the petitioners having been rejected, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.24076 of 2024 (GM-CPC), which was allowed and disposed off vide final order dated 25.11.2024. The said final order with passed by this Court is as under:
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR "The respondent Nos.1 to 3 in F.D.P No.5/2024 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Ramanagara, (henceforth referred to as 'the Final Decree Court') are before this Court challenging an order dated 12.08.2024 passed therein by which an application (I.A. No.17) filed by the petitioner No.1 herein under Order XX Rule 12(1)(i) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') inter alia for issue of delivery warrant against the respondent herein was rejected.
2. The suit in O.S.No.170/2015 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share in the suit schedule properties. The said suit was decreed and FDP No.5/2024 was filed. During the pendency of O.S.No.170/2015, I.A No.10 was filed by the petitioners herein for permission to sell the suit 'A' Schedule property. The said application was rejected in terms of the order dated 10.10.2022, which was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.2725/2023. The parties reported a settlement in W.P. No.2725/2023 whereby the respondent herein had agreed to voluntarily vacate the ground floor of the suit 'A' schedule property on or before 31.01.2024 and to hand over one set of keys to the petitioner No.1 herein for smooth completion of the sale formalities. Consequently, the said writ petition was disposed off on 20.09.2023 ordering decree of O.S.No.170/2015 and O.S.No.300/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Ramanagara. The Trial Court was directed to draw decree in both the suits in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties.
3. Following this, the petitioner No.1 filed I.A No.17 under Order XX Rule 12(1)(i) read with Section 151 of CPC., in final decree proceedings to direct the respondent herein to vacate the ground floor of the suit 'A' schedule property and hand over one set of keys to the petitioner No.1 herein as per
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR the compromise. The said application was opposed by the respondent / plaintiff on various grounds.
4. The Final Decree Court in terms of the impugned order, rejected the application (I.A. No.17) on the ground that the Court had drawn the compromise decree as per the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.2725/2023 and therefore, if the petitioners herein desired to enforce the final decree, then they had to take out execution proceedings.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties had agreed to sell the suit 'A' schedule property and to divide the proceeds between them and the respondent in the ratio 70:30. In this regard, the respondent had agreed to hand over possession of the ground floor of the suit 'A' schedule property to the petitioner No.1 herein so as to facilitate the sale of the property. He contends that the respondent having agreed to vacate the premises is now squatting on the property and he is not allowing the property to be sold. He, therefore, contends that the respondent be directed to comply with the compromise reported before this Court in W.P. No.2725/2023 mentioned above.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that though the respondent had brought in purchasers to purchase the suit 'A' schedule property, the petitioners were the ones who were laying stumbling blocks and did not co- operate for sale of the property. He contends that there are several tenants in the property and the respondent is bound to pay up the tenants if they have to vacate. He contends that since the property is not sold for nearly one year, he may be
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR permitted to stay thereon until the petitioners bring in a confirmed proposal for sale of the property.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
9. The terms of the settlement reported by the parties before this Court in W.P. No.2725/2023 shows that 30% of the value of the suit 'A' schedule property and 30% of the value in the suit 'B' schedule property had to be made over to the respondent. The respondent who is in possession of the ground floor of the suit 'A' schedule property had agreed that the value could be realized only after sale of the property and therefore, had agreed to vacate the ground floor of the suit 'A' schedule property so as to make way for a smooth completion of sale formality. If the respondent had agreed to vacate and hand over the key of the ground floor, he cannot avoid the consequence. Though the Final Decree Court was of the opinion that the compromise reported itself was a final decree, the drawing up of the final decree can happen only after the parties received their respective shares out of the sale consideration that may be realized from sale of the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties in O.S. No.170/2015. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Final Decree Court warrants interference. Hence, the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 12.08.2024 passed on I.A. No.17 in F.D.P No.5/2024 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Ramanagara, is set aside. The said application is allowed.
iii. The respondent/plaintiff is directed to vacate the ground floor of the suit 'A' schedule
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR property in O.S. No.170/2015 and hand over one set of keys to the petitioners herein/defendants.
iv. The Final Decree Court shall issue appropriate delivery warrant directing the respondent herein to hand over vacant possession of the ground floor of the suit 'A' schedule property in O.S. No.170/2015 along with one set of keys to the petitioners herein.
v. It is made clear that if the petitioners do not take concrete steps and sell the suit 'A' schedule property within three months from today, then the respondent shall be entitled to recover back the possession of the ground floor of the suit 'A' schedule property through the process of the Court.
In view of disposal of this petition, the pending I.A No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.
5. Subsequently, the respondent herein filed the instant application-I.A.No.21 under Section 151 of CPC for re-issuance of a delivery warrant in respect of the entire ground floor portion of the 'A' schedule property in order to take physical possession of the same by them as per the directions issued in the aforesaid W.P.No.24076 of 2024 by breaking open the lock and key and with help from the jurisdictional police authorities. The said application, having been opposed by the petitioners, so
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR also, the petitioners filed an application-I.A.No.22 to recall the delivery warrant issued against them. The Trial Court, by the impugned orders dated 24.01.2026, allowed I.A.No.21 filed by the respondent and rejected I.A.No.22 filed by the petitioners. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court, allowing I.A.No.21 is as under:
The petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A No.21 under Section 151 of C.P.C with a prayer to re- issued delivery warrant in respect of the entire ground floor portion of 'A' schedule property in order to take a physical possession of the same by the respondent as per the order/direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru passed in a writ petition No. 24076/2024 dated:
25.11.2024 by break opening the lock and key with jurisdictional police help.
2. In the affidavit annexed to the application, the petitioner/plaintiff herein stated that since the respondents/ defendants have failed to comply the terms and conditions of the Order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated:25.11.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.24076/2024 (GMCPC). He has filed IA No.20 under Section 151 of C.P.C dated: 04.06.2025 by seeking appropriate order from this court to issue delivery warrant in respect of the entire ground floor portion of 'A' schedule as mentioned in the accompanying application in order to take physical possession of the same. It is further stated that the respondents have filed a memo dated 29.04.2025 by way of objection to his application as mentioned earlier. After hearing both the side on application, on his application as well as the respondent's memo, this Court was to passed
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR an order dated: 08.07.2025 by allowing the I.A. No.20 by way of directing the office to issue delivery warrant against the 1st respondent/1st defendant herein to hand over the physical possession of the entire ground floor of 'A' schedule property along with one set of keys of the ground floor of the same.
3. It is further stated that since the respondents have failed to comply the order passed by this court once again on 18.08.2025, he prayed before this court to re-issue delivery warrant with respect to the property in question, this Court was pleased to an order once again to reissue delivery warrant on 18.08.2025 returnable by 27.09.2025. When the court officials/Ameen came near the suit schedule property in order to execute the delivery warrant, the respondents have put the property in question under fresh lock and keys without handing over one set of keys to the petitioner in spite of the direction of this Court. As a result, Court Official/Ameen was unable to execute the delivery warrant and forced to return the delivery warrant to this Court with a shara on 06.09.2025 stating that police help is required to execute the delivery warrant in order to break open the lock and key.
4. It is further stated that he has no other option except approach this court for seeking necessary order to reissue delivery warrant with jurisdictional police help to execute the warrant by way of break open lock and key in order to take physical possession of the property in question as mentioned in the accompanying application. If this Court is not allowed the accompanying application as prayed for, he will be put great hardship and injury and on the other hand no hardship will be caused to the other side if the petitioner/plaintiff's application is allowed. Hence, he prays to pass an order to allow the accompanying application as prayed for.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR
5. In order to receive the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff herein, the learned counsel for the respondents submits the memo of calculation may be considered as objection to the I.A. No.21.
6. In the memo of calculation, the respondents/ defendants herein have stated that the suit schedule property is agreed to be sold for Rs.60,00,000/-, as per the compromise decree, the petitioner/plaintiff herein Sri.Puttaswamy is entitled for 30% of the sale consideration of the suit schedule 'A' property i.e. Rs,18,00,000/-. The respondents have deposited DD for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- before this court in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff herein. The balance sale consideration by deducting the property tax, water bill and deposited D.D. for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.11,30,000/-. The respondents are ready to deposit Rs.11,30,000/- before this court on or before 24.11.2025 and also requested to close the F.D.P in respect of the suit schedule 'A' property as fully satisfied to the share of petitioner/plaintiff herein in respect of the suit schedule 'A' property as per the compromise decree passed by this court.
7. Heard the arguments from both the learned counsels for the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants and also perused the records. 8. In view of the material placed before me and the rival contention raised by the parties, the following points are arising for my consideration ;
POINTS (1) Whether the petitioner/plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds to allow the I.A. No.21 filed under Section 151 of CPC?
(2) What Order ?
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR
9. My answer to the above points are as under;
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1 :- This is an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff herein with a prayer to reissue delivery warrant in respect of the entire ground floor portion of 'A' schedule property in order to take physical possession of the same by the respondent as per the order/direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru passed in writ petition No.24076/2024 dated 25.11.2024 by break opening the lock and key with jurisdictional police's help.
11. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner herein reiterated the very contention taken in the affidavit annexed to the application. Further, he argued that the respondents have failed to comply the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed in WP No. 24076. Hence, this court has issued delivery warrant, in respect of the entire ground floor portion of 'A' schedule property by allowing the I.A. No.20 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff herein under Section 151 of C.P.C as per the order dated:
08.07.2025. Despite issuance of delivery warrant, the respondents have intentionally avoided to execute the delivery warrant issued in this case and she has put new lock to the suit schedule 'A' property. As a result, court official/court ameen was unable to execute the delivery warrant and forced to return the delivery warrant to this court, with the shara stating that police help is required to execute the delivery warrant in order to break open the lock and key. Hence, he preferred to this application
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR prayed for re-issue the delivery warrant with the jurisdictional police's help to execute the warrant by way of break open lock and key in order to take physical possession of the property in question.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the respondents have delayed to take concrete steps only to get good price to the suit schedule 'A' property. However because of the non-co-operation of the petitioner/plaintiff herein she could not do so and the petitioner/plaintiff himself prevented the 1st respondent and threatened the prospective purchaser to purchase the suit schedule properties on the ground that he will re-occupy the suit schedule 'A' property within 3 months and he will not allow the respondents to sell the suit schedule 'A' property because of that it was not possible for the 1st respondent to get good price to the suit schedule 'A' property so far and the 1st respondent has decided to sell the suit schedule 'A' property as per the demand. It is further argued that in the original compromise decree, there is a condition that if the suit schedule property is not sold within 3 months and the same will be sold to the best price offered by the parties and it is also made it clear that the petitioner/plaintiff is also entitled to search good purchaser to sell the suit schedule property. But, he failed to act as per the said option. On the other hand, he filed application for delivery warrant, the very purpose of the said compromise decree was to sell the suit schedule property at the earliest and not allow any one of the parties to stay continuously in the suit schedule property.
13. It is further argued that the 1st respondent has entered into an agreement to sell the suit schedule property with the purchaser and also received Rs.5,00,000/- advance amount from him and also handed over the possession of the ground floor of the suit schedule 'A' property to him
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR as token of guarantee. It is further argued that 30% of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- i.e., Rs.1,50,000/- DD is purchased and deposited before this court. As per the terms of the said compromise decree and it is also agreed that entire liability of the suit schedule 'A' property shall be divided in the same ratio 70% : 30% and final share will be paid to the petitioner/plaintiff after deducting the liability amount as mentioned in the compromise decree. Hence, the respondent No.1/defendant has taken concrete steps to sell the suit schedule 'A' property and claim of petitioner/plaintiff shall be settled within two months. Hence, he prays to recall the delivery warrant issued against the ground floor of the suit schedule 'A' property, since the possession is already delivered to the purchaser as per the agreement to sale dated 25.09.2025. Hence, prays to allow the application.
14. From the materials available on record, it is very clear that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, had been directed to vacate the ground floor of the 'A' schedule property in OS No. 170/2015 and hand over one set of keys to the respondent/defendants. It is also very clear that after receipt of the physical possession and one set of keys, the respondents/ defendants have failed to comply the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Therefore, this court has issued Delivery Warrant against the 1st respondent to hand over the physical possession of the entire ground floor of suit schedule 'A' property in OS No. 170/2015 along with keys to the petitioner/plaintiff herein. But, the delivery warrant issued against the 1st respondent was returned as un-executed with a shara the suit schedule property was locked by the by the respondents/defendants and police help is required to break open the lock.
15. Now the respondents/defendants herein come up with the memo along with copy of
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR agreement of sale dated 25.09.2025 stating that the respondents/defendants assessment have entered into an agreement to sell with respect to the suit schedule 'A' property. She has entered into an agreement of sale with the purchaser for a total sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- and also received Rs.5,00,000/- as advance amount from him and also hand over the possession of the ground floor of the suit schedule 'A' property to him as token of guarantee. On careful perusal of the copy of agreement of sale dated: 25.09.2025. It is very clear that the said agreement is unregistered agreement and the possession of ground floor of the suit schedule 'A' property was delivered. It is settled principle of law that an unregistered agreement to sale with possession of the immovable property does not create any legal title or ownership.
16. Importantly from the records, it is very clear that as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, passed in WP No. 24076/24, the respondents/defendants have not complied and take concrete steps to sell the suit 'A' schedule property within 3 months from the date of order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. The Hon'ble High Court very clearly specified that if the defendants/respondents do not take concrete steps and sell the suit schedule 'A' property within 3 months from the date of order, then the petitioner/plaintiff shall be entitled to recover back the possession of the ground floor of the suit 'A' schedule property through the process of court. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to recover back the possession of the ground floor of the suit schedule 'A' property. In view of the above discussion and orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.2476/2024, dated:
25.11.2024, Further, it is necessary to extend police help, for execute delivery warrant in respect of the entire ground floor portion of 'A' schedule property in order to take physical possession of the
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR same from the respondents/defendants by break opening the lock and key. Hence, this court has answered Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
17. Point No 2 : For the above said reasons assigned in the point No.1, for the following :-
ORDER The I.A. No.21 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 151 of C.P.C is hereby allowed.
Consequently, Office to re-issue Delivery Warrant against the respondents/defendants herein to hand over the physical possession of the entire ground floor of the suit schedule 'A' property in OS No.170/2015 along with keys to the Petitioner/ plaintiff herein, by break-opening the lock and key with the help of jurisdictional police. No order as to costs.
6. The impugned order rejecting I.A.No..22 is as under:
The respondents/defendants have filed I.A No.22 under Section 151 of C.P.C with a prayer to recall the delivery warrant issued against the defendants to deliver the possession of the ground floor of the suit schedule 'A' property as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.24076/2024.
2. In the affidavit annexed to the application, the 1st respondent/1st defendant stated that as against the order passed by this court on I.A. No.17, she has approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No. 24076/2024. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to quash the order of this court and thereby allowed the said writ petition filed by her through vide order dated:
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR 25.11.2024 with the certain directions. One of the said conditions would be possession of the ground floor of the suit Schedule 'A' property shall be restored in case if the 1st respondent has not taken concrete steps to sell the suit schedule properties.
It is further stated that she has delayed to take concrete steps only to get good price to the suit schedule 'A' property. However, because of the non-co-operation of the petitioner/plaintiff herein she could not do so and the petitioner/plaintiff himself prevented the 1st respondent and threatened the prospective purchasers to purchase the suit schedule properties on the ground that he will re-occupy the suit schedule 'A' property within 3 months and he will not allow the respondent to sell the suit schedule 'A' property, because of that it was not possible for the first respondent to get good price to the suit schedule 'A' property so far and the first respondent has decided to sell the suit schedule 'A' property as per the demand. It is further stated that earlier the 1st respondent has filed memo by giving option to the petitioner/ plaintiff to get better price for which she is ready to execute the sale deed. But the petitioner/plaintiff did not act as per the memo. It is further stated that in the original compromise decree there is a condition that if the suit schedule properties are not sold within 3 months and the same will be sold to the best price offered by the parties and it is also made clear that the petitioner/plaintiff is also entitled to search good purchaser to sell the suit schedule properties. But, he failed to act as per the said option and on the other hand he filed application for delivery warrant and also attempted to file application for break open the door and police protection. The very purpose of the said compromise decree was to sell the suit schedule property at the earliest and not allow any one of the parties to stay continuously in the suit schedule 'A' property.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR
3. It is further stated that the 1st petitioner has preferred the review petition for deleting the condition No.5 of the compromise decree. But the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka declined to consider the same and made the point very clear that 1st petitioner shall take positive steps to sell the suit schedule 'A' property and it is also orally discussed that being a khathadar she is entitled to sell the suit schedule 'A' property as per her own decision and the right of the petitioner/plaintiff only to get 30% of the sale consideration and he has no right to question the first respondent's sale transaction much less price. Based on such understanding the petitioner has decided to sell the suit schedule 'A' property to her purchaser who is ready to purchase the suit schedule 'A' property within 2 months and also agreed to purchase the suit schedule 'A' property for a sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- and also requested to hand over the possession of the ground floor suit schedule 'A' property to him on the reasons that there is some dispute between the respondent and plaintiff herein. Hence, the 1st respondent have entered into an agreement of sale with the said purchaser and also received Rs.5,00,000/- advance amount from him and also handed over the possession of the ground floor of the suit schedule 'A' property to him as taken of guarantee. It is further stated that 30% of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- i.e., Rs.1,50,000/- D.D. is purchased in the name of the petitioner/plaintiff and now the respondent No.1 is before this Court as per the terms of the said compromise decree and it is also agreed that entire liability of the suit schedule 'A' property shall be divided in the same ratio of 70% : 30% and final share will be paid to the petitioner/plaintiff after deducting the liability amount as mentioned in the compromise decree. Hence, the respondent No.1 has taken concrete steps to sell the suit schedule 'A' property and claim of the petitioner/plaintiff shall be settled within 2 months. Therefore, the 1st
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR respondent requested to recall the delivery warrant issued against the ground floor of the suit schedule 'A' property. Since the possession is already delivered to the purchaser as per the agreement to sale dated: 25.09.2025. Hence, she prays to allow the application.
4. On the other hand, the petitioner/plaintiff filed detailed statement of objection on the application filed by the first respondent. It is stated that the application filed by the respondents/ defendants is not maintainable either under law or on facts, it lacks bonafide, same is liable to be rejected with exemplary costs. It is further contended that the application under objection is abusing the process of law and only with an intention to harass the petitioner/plaintiff by view of filing frivolous application as well as frivolous memos one after another on the basis of created documents like fictitious agreement of in the name of the third party in respect of 'A' schedule property without the knowledge and consent of this petitioner/plaintiff. The alleged agreement is nothing but fraud played by the respondents/ defendants on the part of the court. Since when the case is pending before this court, in respect of the possession of the ground floor portion of 'A' schedule property, either the respondents/ defendants or the plaintiff cannot be entertained about the possession of any portion of the property without leave of this court. If it is so, it amounts to contempt of court and necessary suo-motu action can be taken by this court against the respondents/ defendants
5. It is further stated that the very memo dated: 29.04.2025 filed by the respondents/ defendants clearly goes to show that they could not able to sell the suit schedule 'A' property for more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- and agreed for taking steps to sell the same in public action through process of law. They have also filed memo before this court on
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR 18.08.2025 stating that they have preferred a review petition No. 344/2025 for reviewing the Condition No.5 of the operative portion of the Order in WP No. 2476/2024(GMCPC). So far respondents/ defendants neither passed the said review petition nor handed over one set key of the ground floor portion of 'A' schedule as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court as well as this Court. Instead, the respondents/defendants are abusing the process of law by way of filing frivolous application as well as false memo or filed one after another only with an intention to protract the proceedings as well as harassing the petitioner/plaintiff.
6. It is further stated that the alleged agreement to sell on which application under objection is clearly reflect the very intention as well as the conduct of the defendants is nothing short of abusing the process of law as well as played by the respondents/ defendants. It is not out of place to mention that till the order dated:18.08.2025 respondents/ defendants have neither taken any concrete steps to sell 'A' schedule as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No. 24076/2024 (GMCPC) nor perusing the said review petition No.344/2025, nor challenged any order passed by this court so far. When this court is about to consider the application under Section 151 of C.P.C for seeking the order from this court for break opening the Lock and keys with jurisdictional police help. The respondents/defendants have filed the application under objection without any iota of truth of substance. The application under objection has been filed which cannot be entertained on any account. Looking from any angle, application of the defendants and respondents is liable to be rejected with exemplary costs. On this ground, is sought for dismissal of the application filed under Section 151 of C.P.C with the exemplary costs.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR
7. Heard the arguments from both the learned counsels for the defendants/respondents and the petitioner/plaintiff. Perused the records.
8. In view of the material placed before me and the rival contention raised by the parties, the following points are arising for my consideration ;
POINTS (1) Whether the respondents/defendants has made out sufficient grounds to allow the I.A. No.22 filed under Section 151 of CPC?
(2) What Order ?
9. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order for the
following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1 :- This is an application filed by the respondents/defendants, with a prayer to recall the delivery warrant issued against the ground floor of the suit schedule 'A' property as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No. 24076/2024. At this juncture, it is useful to read the operative portion of the Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed in WP No.24076/2024 hereunder as follows:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated: 12.08.2024 passed on IA No.17 in FDP No.5/2024 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara is set aside. The said application is allowed.
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR iii. The respondent/plaintiff is directed to vacate the ground floor of the suit 'A' schedule property in OS No. 170/2015 and hand over one set of keys to the petitioners herein / defendants.
iv. The final decree court shall issue appropriate delivery warrant directing the respondent herein to hand over vacant possession of the ground floor of the suit 'A' schedule property in OS No.170/2015 along with one set of keys to the petitioners herein.
v. It is made clear that if the petitioners do not take concrete steps and sell the suit 'A' schedule property within three months from today, then the respondent shall be entitled to recover back the possession of the ground floor of the suit 'A' schedule property through the process of the court. In view of disposal of this petition, the pending I.A. No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.
Sd/-
Judge
11. In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, it is very clear that the plaintiff herein Sri.Puttaswamy is directed to vacate the ground floor of the suit 'A' schedule property in OS No.170/2015 and hand over one set of keys to the respondents/defendants. It is also very clear that if the respondents/defendants have not take concrete steps and sell the suit 'A' schedule property within 3 months from the date of the order dated: 25.11.2024, then the petitioner/plaintiff shall be entitled to recover back the possession of the ground floor of the suit 'A' schedule property through the process of court.
12. In compliance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, the 1st respondent and their respective counsels are appeared before this court on 17.01.2025. The petitioner/plaintiff has handed over the one set of
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR key of the ground floor a portion of 'A' schedule property and also possession of vacant ground floor 'A' schedule property, to the 1st respondent and the same is received and acknowledged by the 1st respondent. Admittedly, the suit schedule 'A' property is not sold as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as directed in WP No. 24076/2024. Hence, this Court was allowed the IA No.20 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff herein under Section 151 of CPC, by issuing delivery warrant against the 1st respondent to hand over the physical possession of the entire ground floor of the 'A' schedule property in OS No.170/2015 along with keys to the respondent on 08.07.2025.
13. Such being the facts, the respondents /defendants have come up with this application under Section 151 of CPC, with a prayer to recall the delivery warrant issued against the ground floor of suit schedule 'A' property. On the grounds that The 1st respondent has delayed to take concrete steps only to get a good price to the suit schedule 'A' property because of non cooperation of the petitioner/plaintiff herein. She could not do so and the petitioner/plaintiff himself, prevented her and threatened the prospective purchasers to purchase the suit schedule properties on the ground that he will re-occupy the suit schedule 'A' property within 3 months and he will not allow the 1st respondent to sell the suit schedule 'A' property. Because of that threat it was not possible for the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 to get good price on the suit schedule 'A' property so far. Hence, she decided to sell the suit schedule 'A' property as per the demand. It is further stated that the earlier to that date, respondent filed memo by giving option to the plaintiff to get better price for which she is ready to execute the sale deed. But, the plaintiff did not act as per the memo. In the original compromise decree, there is a condition that if the suit schedule properties are not sold within 3 months and the same will be sold to the best price offered by the
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR parties and it is also made clear that the plaintiff is also entitled to search a good purchaser to sell the suit schedule properties. But, he failed to act as for the said option and on the other hand he filed application for delivery warrant and also attempted to file application for break open the door and police protection. The very purpose of the said compromise and decree was to sell the suit schedule property at the earliest and not allow any one of the parties to stay continuously in the suit schedule 'A' property.
14. The 1st respondent has preferred the review petition for deleting the conditions No.5 of the compromise decree. But the Hon'ble High Court declined to consider the same and made the point very clear that the petitioners shall take positive steps to sell the suit schedule 'A' property and it is also orally the 1st respondent is entitled to sell the suit schedule 'A' property as per her own decision and the right of the plaintiff only to get 30% of the sale consideration and he has no right to question her sale transaction much less price. Hence, the 1st respondent decided to sell the suit schedule 'A' property to her purchaser who is ready to purchase the suit schedule 'A' property within 2 months and also agreed to purchase the suit schedule 'A' property for a sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- and also requested to hand over the possession of the ground for suit schedule 'A' property, to him on the reason that there is some dispute between the 1st respondent and the petitioner herein. Hence, the 1st respondent entered into an agreement to sell with the said purchaser and also received Rs.5,00,000/- advance amount from him and also handed over the possession of the ground floor of the suit schedule 'A' property to him as taken of guarantee. Therefore, the 1st respondent tendered the D.D. for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner/plaintiff as per the terms of the compromise decree. And final share will be paid to the petitioner/plaintiff after deducting the liability
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR amount as mentioned in the compromise decree. The 1st respondent sought for recall the delivery warrant issued against the ground floor of the suit schedule 'A' property by saying that since the possession of suit schedule 'A' property is already delivered to the purchaser as per the agreement to sell dated 25.09.2025. In support of the application, the 1st respondent has produced copy of unregistered agreement of sale dated 24.09.2025 and also filed memo with DD bearing No.553169 for Rs.1,50,000/- dated 26.09.2025 drawn on CSB Bank, Padmanabhanagar Branch. But, the petitioner/plaintiff and his counsel are refused to receive the D.D.
15. On the other hand, opposed this application by filing detailed objection by contending that the application filed by the first respondent is abusing the process of law and only with an intention to harass the petitioner/plaintiff by way of filing frivolous application as well as frivolous memos one after another on the basis of created documents like fictitious agreement of in the name of the third party in the respect of a schedule. Without the knowledge and consent of this plaintiff. The alleged agreement is nothing but a fraud played by the respondents/defendants on the part of the court. Since when the case is pending before this court in respect of the possession of the ground floor portion of 'A' schedule property, either the respondents/defendants or the plaintiff cannot be entertained by the about the possession of any portion of the property without leave of this court. If it is so, it amounts to contempt of court and necessary suo-motu action can be taken by this court against the respondents/defendants.
16. It is further contented that the very memo dated 29.04.1925 filed by the respondents/defendants clearly goes to show that they could not able to sell the 'A' property for more
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR than Rs.1,00,00,000/- and agreed for taking steps to sell the same in public action through process of law. They have also filed a memo before this court. On 18.08.2025 stating that they have preferred a review petition No. 344/2025 for reviewing the condition No.5 of the operative portion of the order in W.P.No.2476/2024 (GMCPC). So far respondents/defendants neither passed the said review nor Petition are handed over the one side key of the ground floor portion of 'A' schedule as per the direction of this court as well as the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Instead of the respondents/defendants, respondents abusing the process of law by way of filing frivolous application as well as false memo or filed one after another only with an intention to protract the proceedings and harass the plaintiff.
17. From the records, admittedly, in compliance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No. 24076/2024, both the petitioner/plaintiff and the 1st respondent/1st defendant are appeared before this court on 17.01.2025. On the same day, the petitioner/ plaintiff had handed over the one set of keys on the ground floor, portion of 'A' schedule property, and also vacant possession and the same is received and acknowledged by the 1st respondent. From 17.01.2025, the 1st respondent has not taken any concrete steps to sell the suit schedule 'A' property and not complied the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka within 3 months from the date of the order. Hence, this court was issued delivery warrant against the 1st respondent/1st defendant to hand over the physical possession of the entire ground floor of the 'A' suit schedule property along with the keys. Thereafter, despite issuance of possession delivery warrant with respect to the entire ground floor of the 'A' suit schedule property, the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has not handed over the possession of the entire ground floor of the 'A' suit schedule property along with
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR keys and evaded to execution of said warrant. Then on 27.09.2025 the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 appeared before this court with memo along with D.D. dated: 26.09.2025 bearing No.553169 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on CSB Bank, Padmanabhanagar branch with copy of agreement of sale Dated: 24.09.2025, but the petitioner/ plaintiff herein had refused to accept the D.D. and Agreement of sale by alleging that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has created documents like fictitious agreement in the name of third party without knowledge and consent of the petitioner/ plaintiff.
18. from the records, no doubt as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed in WP No.24076/2024, the petitioner has not complied and to take concrete steps to sell the suit 'A' schedule property within 3 months from the date of the order. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to recover back the possession of the ground floor of suit 'A' schedule property as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.24076/2024, dated: 25.11.2024. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.2476/2024, dated: 25.11.2024, this court is answered Point No.1 in the Negative.
19. Point No.2:- For the above said reasons of the point No.1, for the following:
ORDER I.A. No.22 filed by the respondents/ defendants under Section 151 of C.P.C is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR
7. As can be seen from the impugned orders, the Trial Court has upheld the claim of the respondent and rejected the claim of the petitioners, in the light of the earlier orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.24076 of 2024 (GM-CPC) and has assigned valid and cogent reasons as to why the claim of the petitioners was being rejected and the claim of the respondent was being upheld by the Trial Court. It is well settled that having regard to the specific directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.24076 of 2024 (GM-CPC), it is not permissible for the petitioners to seek to go beyond/behind the said directions and putforth contentions, which would tantamount to circumventing or violating the terms and conditions embodied in the final order passed by this Court. It is also significant to note that aggrieved by the said order dated 25.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.24076 of 2024 (GM-CPC), the petitioners preferred a review petition in R.P.No.346 of 2025, which also came to be dismissed by this Court as hereunder:
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR "The petitioners have sought for review of the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by this Court in WP No.24076/2024.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by relief No.v granted in the writ petition. The order in WP No.24076/2024 shows that relief No.v was an arrangement made by the Court to enable the petitioner to sell the property in possession of the respondent and hand over 30% of the value to the respondent. The petitioner has not been able to take advantage of the said order. Now they want to seek review of the writ petition to delete relief No.v so as to retain possession of the property, which the respondent had delivered. This Court after perusing the order, does not see any infirmity or error apparent on the face of record warranting review. If the petitioner desires to enforce the compromise decree passed in the suit, he may do so in the manner known to law. There is no justification to review the order passed by this Court.
3. Hence, the review petition is dismissed, but subject to the observations made above.
8. In addition thereto, learned counsel for the respondent submits that on 09.02.2025, the respondent has already taken physical possession of the schedule property from the petitioners.
9. Submission is placed on record.
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8739 WP No. 4579 of 2026 HC-KAR
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the orders passed by this Court in the previous round of litigation, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, which has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held in the case of (i) Radhey Shyam & others Vs. Chhabi Nath & others (2015) 5 SCC 423 (ii) K.P.Natarajan & others Vs. Muthalammal & others AIR 2021 SC 3443 (iii) Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya (2022) 10 SCC 477. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE DH List No.: 3 Sl No.: 49