Karnataka High Court
N.V.Mohammed Unni Since Deceased By His ... vs Bhaskar Sait on 17 February, 2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.18737/2013
and W.P.No.19591/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. N.V.Mohammed Unni,
S/o.Moid Unni,
Since dead, rep by LRs.
a. Nawaz Mohammed Unni,
S/o.Late N.V.Mohammed Unni,
Aged about 39 years.
b. Naushad Mohammed Unni,
S/o.Late N.V.Mohammed Unni,
Aged about 33 years.
Both are residing at No.463,
12th Cross, Wilson Garden,
Bangalore - 27.
c. Nausaiba,
W/o.Abdul Salam,
D/o.Late N.V.Mohammed Unni,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at.Sarambikkal House,
Vatanappaly Post,
Tirchur District.
Kerala State.
-2-
2. Smt.K.Jameela,
W/o.Late N.V.Mohammed Unni.
Aged about 62 years,
Residing at No.463,
12th Cross, Wilson Garden,
Bangalore - 27. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri.G.Manivannan, Adv.,)
AND:
1. Bhaskar Sait,
S/o.Late Siddu,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at.Pawar House,
Ward No.745, South Bazaar,
Trichur - 1,
Kerala State.
2. Smt.K.V.Arifa,
W/o.M.M.Haris,
D/o.Late N.V.Mohammed Unni,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at.Madathiparambil House,
Vennala Post,
Ernakulam Dist,
Kerala State.
3. The Sub-Inspector,
Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 11.
4. State of Karnataka,
By its Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 01. ...RESPONDENTS
-3-
(By Sri.Amresh A.Angadi, Adv., for R1;
R2 to 4 Notice dispensed with vide order dated 26.4.13)
******
These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated
23.3.2013 passed by the Hon'ble XVI Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Ex.No.301 of 2004 on IA filed
by the respondent No.1 at Ann-G and be pleased to dismiss
the IA filed by the petitioners at Ann-E and etc.
These petitions coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:-
ORDER
In these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question, the order dated 23.3.2013, passed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No.301/2004, vide Annexure-G.
2. By the impugned order at Annexure-G, the Executing Court has allowed the application filed u/s 151 of CPC and has directed the Registrar, City Civil Court, Bangalore, to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the first respondent-decree holder in respect of the suit/execution schedule property.
-4-
3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
4. Briefly stated the facts are:
The petitioners 1(a) to (c) are the L.Rs of the original judgment debtor Sri.Mohammed Unni. The second petitioner was the second defendant in the original suit. The first respondent had filed suit in O.S.No.5751/1993 for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 1.7.1993. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 17.11.2003. The petitioners have preferred an appeal in RFA No.235/2004. In the appeal, the parties have field a joint memo stating that the matter has been settled between the parties and therefore, the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the joint memo. Accordingly, the appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn.
5. The first respondent has initiated execution proceedings in Execution Case No.301/2004. In the execution proceedings the first respondent has filed an application u/s 151 of CPC praying to direct the Registrar, -5- City Civil Court, Bangalore, to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the first respondent in respect of the suit /execution schedule property. The Executing Court by its order dated 23.3.2013 has allowed the application and has directed the Registrar, City Civil Court, Bangalore, to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the first respondent in respect of the suit/execution schedule property. Therefore, these writ petitions.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the sons of the first respondent and the petitioner No.1(a) have entered into agreements in respect of 90 cents of land situated at Perakamamsam, Tamarayoor Deasam, Gurvayoor Taluk, Trichur District and unless the first respondent complies with the terms of the agreements the decree in O.S.No.5751/94 cannot be executed. In terms of the agreements, the sale deed is yet to be executed in respect of 5 cents and the land is yet to be levelled. -6- Therefore, the Executing Court was not justified in directing the Registrar, City Civil Court, Bangalore, to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the first respondent. Further he submitted that the agreements at Annexures-B and C have been misread by the Executing Court. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
7. As against this, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the alleged agreements said to be have been executed between the sons of the first respondent and petitioner No.1(a) has nothing to do with the decree passed in O.S.No.5751/1993 which has been confirmed in RFA No.235/2004. Therefore, the Executing Court was justified in allowing the application and directing the Registrar, City Civil Court, Bangalore to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the first respondent in respect of the suit/execution schedule property. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. -7-
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The point that arises for my consideration is:
Whether the impugned order calls for interference?
10. It is relevant to note, the suit in O.S.No.5751/1993 has been filed by the first respondent for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 1.7.1993. The suit has been decreed on 17.11.2003. The petitioners have preferred an appeal in RFA No.235/2004. In the appeal, the parties have filed a joint memo. The appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the joint memo.
11. In the meanwhile, the first respondent has initiated execution proceedings in Ex.Case No.301/2004. In the execution proceedings, the first respondent has filed an application praying to direct the Registrar, City Civil Court, Bangalore, to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent in terms of the decree. The Executing Court has allowed the application and has directed the Registrar, -8- City Civil Court, Bangalore, to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent in respect of the suit/execution schedule property. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Executing Court has erred while directing the Registrar, City Civil Court, Bangalore, to execute the sale deed in view of the agreements entered into between the first respondent's sons and petitioner No.1(a) in respect of 90 cents of land situated at Perakamamsam, Tamarayoor Deasam, Gurvayoor Taluk, Trichur District. I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that the decree passed in O.S.No.5751/1993 has nothing to do with the agreements said to have been executed between the first respondent's sons and petitioner No.1(a). There is nothing to indicate that the agreements are relatable to the decree passed in O.S.No.5751/1993. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and accordingly, it is rejected. The Executing Court has rightly directed the Registrar, City Civil Court, Bangalore, to execute -9- the sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent in terms of the decree in respect of the suit/execution schedule property. It does not call for interference. There is no merit in these writ petitions and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. It is made clear, the obligations if any, created under the agreements said to have been executed between the sons of the first respondent and petitioner No.1(a) are not affected in anyway by this order.
I.A.No.1/14 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Dvr: