Karnataka High Court
Smt Siddagangamma vs Manjanna on 24 April, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:16935
WP No. 31200 of 2015
C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 31200 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 11745 OF 2021 (LR)
IN W.P.No. 31200 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
MANJANNA., S/O LATE ANKAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O GUMMASANDRA.,
KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA., A.V., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN
KUMAR R AND:
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA.,
KARNATAKA
W/O D.R.VENKATESHAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY
RANGANATHA.,
CLAIM TO BE THE ADOPTED SON OF
D.R.VENKATESHAIAH,
R/O CHIKKATHOGURU, BEGURU HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560034.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N.NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE) -2- NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:14.07.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AT MAGADI IN EX.7/1986 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND DIRECT THE EXECUTING COURT TO AWAIT THE DECISION OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL BEFORE WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE EXECUTION SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IS PENDING, ETC. IN W.P.No. 11745 OF 2021 BETWEEN:
(SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O D.R.VENKATESHAIAH, SINCED DEAD BY ADOPTED SON) RANGANATHA, S/O D.R.VENKATESHAIAH, R/O CHIKKA THOGURU, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.NAGARAJA.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MANJANNA, S/O ANKAIAH, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT GUMMASANDRA, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL BY ITS CHAIRMAN MAGADI TALUK, -3- NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 TALUK OFFICE, BUILDING, MAGADI TALUK, MAGADI, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE COMMISSIONER, (REVENUE SECRETARIAT) VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA. A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, RECORDS IN CASE No.LRF 543/1981-82 ON THE FILE OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MAGADI MAY BE CALLED FOR AND THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2017 IN CASE No.LRF 543/1981-82 ON ITS FILE MARKED AS ANNEXURE-U MAY BE QUASHED BY WRIT OR DIRECTION MAY BE ISSUED AND THIS WRIT PETITION BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA -4- NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 CAV ORDER
1. The facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows:
2. The lands involved in these writ petitions are lands bearing Sy.Nos.1, 14, 16, 17 and 29 situated in Gummasandra village, Kasaba hobli of Magadi Taluk.
3. Survey Nos.14 and 15 originally belonged to one Ramaiah, who executed a registered Gift Deed dated 06.11.1946 in respect of Sy.No.14 measuring 15 Guntas in favour of his grand-daughter--
Siddagangamma.
4. On 08.10.1952, Sanjeevamma, i.e., the mother of Siddagangamma, and her husband--
D.R.Venkateshaiah entered into a settlement deed with Siddagangamma, under which Siddagangamma was given properties bearing Sy.No.16 measuring 28 Guntas, Sy.No.17 measuring 23 Guntas, Sy.No.29 measuring 34 Guntas and Sy.No.1 measuring 05 Acres 04 Guntas.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021
5. It may also be pertinent to state here that under the very same settlement deed, Revanasiddaiah was also granted certain properties.
6. Despite the execution of the settlement deed between Sanjeevamma and her daughter Siddagangamma, disputes arose between them and as a consequence, Siddagangamma--the daughter, instituted a suit in O.S.No.312 of 1964 seeking a declaration that she was the owner of the properties bearing Sy.Nos.14, 16, 17, 29 and 1 and also a house property and that she was entitled for possession of the said properties.
7. Siddagangamma had filed the said suit for declaration and possession not only against her mother Siddagangaiah, but also against Revanasiddaiah.
8. It was the case of Siddagangamma that she had become the owner of the said properties by virtue of -6- NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 the Gift Deed dated 06.11.1946 and the Settlement deed dated 08.10.1952 and the khata was also registered in her name but her title was sought to be denied and possession was not handed over to her despite a demand being made and hence she was constrained to file the suit.
9. Revanasiddaiah, who was defendant No.1 in the said suit, stated that he was not in possession of the suit schedule properties and he stated that Sanjeevamma, the mother of Siddagangamma was in possession of the said properties. He specifically stated that he was not in possession of the suit properties but was in possession of other properties that had been allotted to him under the settlement deed dated 08.10.1952. In fact, he stated that he was not a necessary and proper party in the suit and the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties.
10. The Court of Munsif-II accepted the plea of Siddagangamma and decreed the suit in part on -7- NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 24.02.1972 and it held that Siddagangamma was only entitled for declaration of her title, but she was not entitled for a decree of possession. Thus, the prayer for possession was refused.
11. As a consequence of the dismissal of the suit relating to possession, Siddagangamma preferred an appeal in R.A. No.73 of 1972 before the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru. Incidentally, the decree granting a declaration of title in favour of Siddagangamma was accepted by both Revanasiddaiah and Sanjeevamma inasmuch as they did not prefer any appeal.
12. The Appellate Court after hearing the parties, vide its judgment dated 15.06.1974, allowed the appeal and also granted Siddagangamma a decree for possession. Thus, the suit filed by Siddagangamma was decreed in full and she was declared to be the owner and also entitled to be given possession of the said properties.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021
13. It may be pertinent to notice here at this stage that the appeal was allowed on 15.06.1974 and this date would be relevant for its effect on the subsequent events.
14. On 09.05.1975, despite categorically stating in the suit that he was not in possession and Sanjeevamma was in possession, Revanasiddaiah filed Form No.7. Incidentally, in this application, he stated that Siddagangamma was the owner.
15. The Land Tribunal, by an order dated 09.11.1981, conferred occupancy rights in favour of Revanasiddaiah. The Land Tribunal took note of the fact that Sanjeevamma had admitted that the properties belonged to Siddagangamma but was being cultivated by Revanasiddaiah on vara basis since twenty years. In other words, Sanjeevamma, who was defendant No.2 in O.S.No.312 of 1964 and who had suffered a decree not only of title in favour of her daughter but also of possession on -9- NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 15.06.1974, conceded tenancy in favour of the first defendant, Revanasiddaiah. Essentially, the defendants in the suit supported each other in the tenancy proceedings so as to deny the plaintiff the benefits of the decree granted in her favour by the Civil Courts.
16. As already noticed above, while filing the written statement in the suit, Revanasiddaiah had categorically stated that he was not in possession of the properties. Thus, the Land Tribunal fundamentally granted occupancy rights in favour of Revanasiddaiah who had categorically admitted that he was not in possession of the properties, and it was Sanjeevamma who had deposed before the Land Tribunal that she was in possession. This order of the Land Tribunal was challenged by Siddagangamma in Writ Petition No.8911 of 1985.
17. This writ petition was transferred to the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority on the Appellate
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 Authority being constituted under the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. However, during the pendency of this appeal, the Land Reforms Act was amended, which abolished the Appellate Authority and provided for the appeals to be transferred to the High Court. On an application filed by Siddagangamma, the appeal was transferred and was treated as Writ Petition No.15916 of 1991.
18. On 10.08.1993, W.P. No.15916 of 1991 filed by Siddagangamma was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration.
19. At this stage, it may be pertinent to state here that on 30.10.1984, Revanasiddaiah executed a Will in favour of Manjanna, the present petitioner, and Revanasiddaiah thereafter passed away on 22.02.1985. Thus, the petitioner is the legatee of Revanasiddaiah who had admitted in the suit that he was not in possession of the lands in question yet
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 had filed an application seeking for occupancy rights on the ground that he was a tenant.
20. It may also be pertinent to state here that in the year 1986, Siddagangamma had filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.7 of 1986 to execute the decree for declaration and possession that she had secured in O.S. No.312 of 1964 and R.A.No.73 of 1972.
21. In this execution proceeding, Revanasiddaiah filed an application seeking for stay of all further proceedings on the ground that he had filed Form No.7 and same was being adjudicated by the Land Tribunal. The Executing Court, however, dismissed this application on 05.01.1995. The dismissal of this execution proceedings and application for seeking stay was accepted by Manjana inasmuch as no writ petition or revision was preferred against it.
22. It may also be pertinent to state here that during the pendency of this Execution Petition, on 28.04.1994,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 Siddagangamma adopted Ranganatha i.e., the petitioner in Writ Petition No.11745 of 2021, under a registered adoption deed.
23. Pursuant to the order of remand dated 10.08.1993 passed in W.P. No.15916 of 1991, the Land Tribunal took up the matter for consideration and proceeded to pass an order conferring occupancy rights in favour of Revanasiddaiah.
24. During the pendency of this revision, Siddagangamma passed away and her adopted son, i.e., Ranganatha, came on record as her legal heir.
25. After Ranganatha came on record in the execution petition, the Executing Court proceeded to issue a delivery warrant directing that possession of the properties be delivered to Ranganatha. This order was passed on 14.07.2015 and it is this order which is impugned in Writ Petition No.31200 of 2015.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021
26. After the delivery warrant was issued on 14.07.2015, the Land Tribunal also proceeded to pass an order on 06.12.2017 conferring occupancy rights in favour of Revanasiddaiah.
27. At this stage, it would be important to notice this fact. W.P. No.31200 of 2015 was filed by Manjanna on 28.07.2015. It may be pertinent to state here that in light of the fact that Ranganatha came on record as the legal heir of Siddagangamma in the execution petition, it was obvious that Manjanna was aware of this particular fact. However, despite this, Manjanna did not bring it to the notice of the Land Tribunal in which Siddagangamma was represented by a General Power of Holder, namely N.V.Narasimhaiah.
28. It may be pertinent to state here that the order passed by the Land Tribunal indicates that pursuant to the order of remand, the matter was taken up for consideration on 09.07.1998, on which date both parties appeared.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021
29. It is also indicated in this order that on 14.01.1999, Revanasiddaiah had appeared through his counsel and an adjournment was sought for and subsequently on 21.06.2001, i.e., 2 years thereafter, when the matter was called, the counsel for Revanasiddaiah was present and on behalf of Siddagangamma, her GPA holder N.V.Narasimhaiah had appeared and a counsel entered appearance on his behalf.
30. The order of the Land Tribunal also indicates that no orders were passed from 2001 to 2016 and that on 27.07.2016, when the matter was called, Revanasiddaiah's counsel appeared, but there was no appearance on behalf of Siddagangamma.
31. It appears that the Land Tribunal was informed that Siddagangamma had no legal heirs and thereafter, the Land Tribunal proceeded to pass an order for paper publication.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021
32. As already noticed above, Ranganatha had in fact come on record as an adopted son of Siddagangamma in the execution petition and it was therefore obvious that Manjanna was aware that Ranganatha was claiming to be the legal heir of Siddagangamma but nevertheless a statement was made that she had no legal heirs.
33. If Siddagangamma did not have any legal heirs, the question of making a paper publication before the Land Tribunal is really of no consequence. The Land Tribunal order also indicates that on 30.11.2016, only Manjana had appeared through his counsel and had once again reiterated that Siddagangamma was no more and she had no legal heirs. He also appears to have stated that a paper publication was made on 12.08.2016 in Udayavani, Kannada Daily newspaper. It is therefore clear that Manjanna had informed the Land Tribunal that Siddagangamma was dead but mischievously did not bring it to the notice of the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 Land Tribunal that Ranganatha had claimed to be her adopted son and had in fact come on record in the Execution Petition.
34. The Land Tribunal has thereafter proceeded to come to the conclusion that Revanasiddaiah was the tenant and was entitled to be conferred with the occupancy rights. In order to come to this conclusion, the Land Tribunal sought to place reliance on a handwritten entry in the Pahani for the year 1971-72 and the production of Kandaaya (tax) receipt for having paid Kandaaya (tax) for the year 1973-74.
35. It is this order of conferring occupancy rights which is challenged by Ranganatha in W.P.No.11745 of 2021.
36. Ranganatha also states in the writ petition that he was completely unaware of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, and he came to know about this order only when it was sought to be produced in Writ
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 Petition No.31200 of 2015 and immediately thereafter, he has filed this writ petition.
37. The facts narrated above, which are not in dispute, clearly establish that the lands in question were owned by Siddagangamma and she had acquired these properties under a registered Gift Deed on 06.11.1946 and a Settlement Deed dated 08.10.1952.
38. The filing of O.S.No.312 of 1964 is also not in dispute. As already stated above, in this suit, Revanasiddaiah had been arrayed as defendant No.1 and this suit had been filed by Siddagangamma against Revanasiddaiah and her own mother-- Sanjeevamma, she had sought declaration that she was the owner and was entitled to be put in possession of the properties.
39. In other words, Siddagangamma categorically admitted that she was not in possession of the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 properties and claimed that she was entitled to be put in possession of the properties because she had got these properties under a registered settlement deed.
40. In this particular suit, Revanasiddaiah has made a categorical statement that he was not in possession of the suit properties at all. He has stated that it was Sanjeevamma--the mother of Siddagangamma who was in possession. He incidentally also admits that while he was not in possession of the suit properties, but he was nevertheless in possession of the other properties that were allotted to him under the Settlement Deed dated 08.10.1952, which incidentally was the settlement deed to which Siddagangamma was also a party and under which she got the properties.
41. It was therefore clear that at an undisputed point of time, i.e., in the year 1964, Revanasiddaiah had admitted that he was not in possession of the suit
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 properties, and he had also gone on to state that the suit filed against him was bad for misjoinder of parties.
42. This particular statement of Revanasiddaiah clearly and conclusively proves that Sanjeevamma--the mother of Siddagangamma was in possession, at least in 1964, and the lands could not have therefore been tenanted, fundamentally because the mother was in possession of the properties belonging to her daughter and the question of there being a tenancy would also not arise.
43. As also stated above, this suit was decreed in part on 24.02.1972. Sanjeevamma, who had denied the title of her daughter, did not challenge the said decree. However, Siddagangamma, who had sought for possession, and which had not been granted by the Munsif Court, proceeded to prefer an appeal.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021
44. This appeal in R.A. No.73 of 1972 was decreed, incidentally on 15.06.1974, i.e., after the enactment of the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, which entitled a tenant to claim occupancy rights.
45. It may be pertinent to state here that the Trial Court had refused the prayer for possession on the ground that Sanjeevamma--the mother was in possession by virtue of a settlement deed under which she was entitled to be in possession during her lifetime and also to be maintained out of the income from the said properties and as a consequence, Siddagangamma could not be entitled to claim possession during the lifetime of her mother--Sanjeevamma.
46. It may also be pertinent to state here that Sanjeevamma did not contend that she had tenanted the properties and was eking out her livelihood from the rents that she was getting from the suit properties. She reiterated the averment of
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 Revanasiddaiah that she was in possession of the properties and contended that she was entitled to be in possession till her death.
47. Once the Appellate Court granted a decree for possession on 15.06.1974, it becomes apparent that Revanasiddaiah decided to make a claim over the properties belonging to Siddagangamma by filing Form No.7 seeking conferment of occupancy rights on the premise that he was the tenant of the lands in question. This was obviously to deny Siddgangamma the fruits of the decree that had been granted in her favour.
48. Fundamentally, when Revanasiddaiah admitted in the suit that he was never in possession and in fact, contended that Sanjeevamma was in possession, the question of him claiming tenancy would not arise. The fact that it was stated in Form No.7 that Revanasiddaiah was in possession since past twenty years, was obviously and patently a false statement,
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 with the sole intention to ensure that Siddagangamma would not be able to reap the benefits of the decree that she had secured against her mother.
49. If a person (Revanasiddaiah) who made a solemn statement before the Civil Court that he was not in possession and admitted that defendant No.2 (Sanjeevamma) was in possession, such a person cannot be permitted to contend that he was in possession as a tenant of the lands in question.
50. In fact, there is no revenue record indicating that Revanasiddaiah was in possession as a tenant at any point of time. In fact, there cannot be any such entry in light of the fact that a clear statement was given by Revanasiddaiah in the suit that he was never in possession.
51. As also noticed above, there is yet another factor which has to be taken note of and that is the
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 unscrupulous manner in which Revanasiddaiah's legatee, i.e., Manjanna sought to abuse the judicial process to ensure that Siddagangamma would not get possession of the properties despite there being a decree in her favour.
52. As already noticed above, on the death of Siddagangamma in the year 2015, Ranganatha had come on record as her legal heir in the execution proceeding and had secured a delivery warrant.
53. Despite being aware of this fact, Manjanna has made a statement before the Land Tribunal that Siddagangamma had no legal heirs. Even if Manjanna was not prepared to accept that Ranganatha was the adopted son of Siddagangamma, nevertheless, there was a duty cast upon him to inform the Land Tribunal about the claim being made by Ranganatha. The fact that the Land Tribunal despite being aware of this fact has proceeded to order for paper publication does not make any sense at all. If the landlady is no
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 more, the question of making paper publication for whatever purpose would be clearly absurd.
54. It is therefore glaringly apparent from the above facts that Revanasiddaiah during his lifetime has made every possible effort to thwart Siddagangamma from enjoying the benefits of the decree that she had obtained against her mother and after his death, his legatee--Manjanna has continued this legacy of making unethical attempts to defeat the rights of Siddagangamma.
55. An argument was in fact sought to be advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-- Manjanna that the adoption would be of no consequence and it was not permissible for the adopted son to come on record in an execution petition.
56. This argument is required to be stated only to be rejected. A decree that Siddagangamma obtained
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021 would obviously stand assigned in favour of her legal heirs. Admittedly, Siddagangamma had adopted Ranganatha under the registered adoption deed in the year 1994 under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, an adoption by way of a registered instrument carries with it a presumption about the adoption and from the date of adoption, the adopted son is considered to be the son of the person taking him in adoption. As a consequence, it will have to be held that Ranganatha by virtue of the adoption deed will have to be considered as son of Siddagangamma and would be entitled to reap the benefits of the decree obtained by his mother.
57. In light of the above, in my view, there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner--Manjanna to challenge the issuance of delivery warrant in favour of Ranganatha.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021
58. Similarly, in light of the reasoning given above that Revanasiddaiah had admitted that he was never in possession of the properties, the Land Tribunal could not have conferred occupancy rights in his favour.
59. Consequently, Writ Petition No.31200 of 2015 is dismissed and Writ Petition No.11745 of 2021 is allowed and the impugned order of the Land Tribunal dated 06.12.2017 in case No.LRF 543/1981-82 is quashed.
60. It will have to be noticed that this is a classic case wherein a decree holder is unable to secure the benefits obtained under a decree and every attempt has been made by the judgment debtor to thwart the execution of the decree.
61. In fact, a decree for declaration which was obtained in the year 1972 and was also enlarged into a decree for possession in the year 1974, remains unfulfilled to this day i.e., for a period of 51 years.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021
62. As already noticed above, this is a case where every possible attempt was made by a person, who was admittedly not in possession of the suit properties, to deny the decree holder the possession of the properties that she secured under a decree and his legatee has continued this immoral attempt, to deny the decree holder her and her legal heir to enjoy the benefits of the decree. In this view of the matter, in my view, it would be appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakh) to be paid by the petitioner--Manjanna to Ranganatha within a period of one month from today.
63. Apart from payment of cost, it would also be necessary to direct the Executing Court to ensure that the delivery warrant which it has issued, and which is now confirmed by the dismissal of W.P. No.31200 of 2015 is executed forthwith and a compliance report is submitted to this Court.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16935 WP No. 31200 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11745 of 2021
64. Consequently, despite disposal of the petitions, office is directed to re-list these petitions on 30.06.2025 for reporting compliance by the Executing Court.
65. In view of the disposal of the petitions, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 147