Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shabanambanu Mohammed Shaikh vs Smt. Aminabi Alikhan W/O Late Alikhan ... on 27 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6271
WP No. 102915 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.102915 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHABANAMBANU MOHAMMED SHAIKH,
AGE: 65 YEARS. OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: KASTURBA NAGAR, SIRSI
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
2. SRI. VASIM MOHAMMED SHAIKH,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O: KASTURBA NAGAR, SIRSI
DIST. UTTARKANNADA-581401.
3. SRI. SAMEER MOHAMMED SHAIKH,
AGE: 37 YEARS. OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: KASTURBA NAGAR, SIRSI
DIST. UTTARKANNADA-581401.
4. SRI. IBRAHIM MOHAMMED SHAIKH,
Digitally signed AGE: 34 YEARS. OCC: BUSINESS,
by R/O: KASTURBA NAGAR, SIRSI
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR DIST. UTTARKANNADA-581401
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 5. SRI. SHAIKH AYUB SHAIKH IBRAHIM,
KARNATAKA
AGE: 68 YEARS. OCC: K.S.R.T.C DRIVER
R/O: KASTURBA NAGAR, SIRSI
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
6. SMT. HAZIRABI W/O. RAHAMATULLA GUDDADAMANE,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: GUDDADAMANE SIRSI
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581402.
7. SMT. ASIYABI ABDUL KHUDDUS
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6271
WP No. 102915 of 2024
HC-KAR
7(A). ABDUL KUDDUS S/O. MOHAMMED HAYAT,
AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. CHENNAPURKERI, TQ. SIRSI,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
7(B). MOHAMMED HAYAT S/O. ABDUL KUDDUS,
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. CHENNAPURKERI, TQ. SIRSI,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
8. HAYAT SAB S/O. ABDUL KHUDDUSH,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. CRAFTSMAN,
R/O. NEAR CHANNAPUR, LAKE,
HUSARI ROAD, SIRSI DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581402.
9. SMT. TASLIM BANU JABBAR SHAIKH,
D/O. ABDUL KHUDDUSH HAYAT SAB,
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. NEAR DON-BOSCO SCHOOL,
HUBLI ROAD, SIRSI DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581301.
10. SMT. AMEENABI W/O. SHAIKH IBRAHIM,
AGE: 54 YEARS. OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: GUDDADAMANE SIRSI
DIST: UTTARA-KANNADA-581402.
11. SMT. FARIDA W/O. ABDUL KHUDDUS GOUSESAB,
AGE: 52 YEARS. OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: NEHARU NAGAR SIRSI
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581402.
12. FISARIN ABDUL PATAN MARDANSAB,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: NEHARU NAGAR SIRSI
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581402.
13. SRI. KALEEMULLA S/O. IBRAHIM SHAIKH,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTER,
R/O: NEHARU NAGAR SIRSI,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581402.
14. SMT. SALEEMABI W/O. LATE IBRAHIM SHAIKH,
AGE. 85 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6271
WP No. 102915 of 2024
HC-KAR
R/O. GUDDADAMANE, SIRSI,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581402.
(DECEASED)
(NOTE. PETITIONER NO.5 IS GPA HOLDER OF
PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4 AND 6 TO 14)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH M.KHARVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. AMINABI ALIKHAN
W/O. LATE ALIKHAN GUDDADMANE,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
2. ABDUL SHUKUR ALLIKHAN
S/O LATE ALLIKHAN GUDDADAMANE,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, HUBLI ROAD,
SIRSI DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
3. ABDUL MAJID ALLIKHAN
S/O. LATE ALLIKHAN GUDDADAMANE,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, HUBLI ROAD,
SIRSI DIST: UTTARKANNAD-581401.
4. IMTIYAZ ALLIKHAN
S/O. LATE ALLIKHAN GUDDADAMANE,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, HUBLI ROAD,
SIRSI DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581401
5. RAFIQ ALLIKHAN S/O. LATE ALLIKHAN GUDDADAMANE,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE ,
R/O: BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, HUBLI ROAD,
SIRSI DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581401
6. ISMAYIL ALLIKHAN S/O. LATE ALLIKHAN GUDDADAMANE,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, HUBLI ROAD,
SIRSI DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581401
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6271
WP No. 102915 of 2024
HC-KAR
7. SRI. ALTAF ALLIKHAN S/O. LATE ALLIKHAN GUDDADAMANE
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE ,
R/O: BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, HUBLI ROAD,
SIRSI DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581401
8. SMT. MAHIROON W/O. RAHAMATULLA BAIGH,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KASTURBA NAGAR,
SIRSI DIST: UTTARKANNAD-581401.
9. SMT. HAMEEDA BABUSAB W/O. HAMEEDA BABUSAB,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KASTURBA NAGAR,
SIRSI DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581401
10. SMT . MAMTAZ W/O. MAHABOOB HANGARKI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KODIBAG, KARWAR
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581303
11. SMT . PARVEEN W/O. MAIDEENKHAN,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: HULEKAL SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581336.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.T. BANGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7;
R2-R11 TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R1;
NOTICE TO R8 TO R11 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT /ORDER IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND 1ST ADDL. JMFC SIRSI IN EXECUTION
NO.181/2013 DATED 18-04-2024 ON IA NO.11 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,,.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6271
WP No. 102915 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. The petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the order on I.A. No.10 dated 18.04.2024 passed in EP No.181 of 2013 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and I Addl. JMFC, Sirsi vide Annexure A.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:
The respondents have filed suit for possession against the petitioners in OS No.120/1998 regarding the suit property bearing No-131/1B measuring 0.12.0 Guntas out of 02.09.12 Anna's situated at Guddadamane, Sirsi. Thereafter, the trial court clubbed both suits i.e., O.S No.120/1998 and O.S No.134/2001 and passed the common judgment on 31.07.2013. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by DHR's father in OS No.120/1998 and the suit filed by the petitioner's father in O.S No.134/2001 came to be dismissed. Against said the judgment and decree, the petitioner's father has preferred appeal bearing R.A -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6271 WP No. 102915 of 2024 HC-KAR No.77/2013 and R.A No.78/2013 and same was confirmed by the first appellate court. Furthermore, this court dismissed the RSA No.100942/2016 and RSA No.100943/2016 filed by the petitioners.
3. Thereafter, the DHR/Respondent has filed an execution petition Nо.181/2013 before the Trial Court to execute the order passed in O.S No.120/1998. The JDR/ petitioner's has filed objection to the said petition and contends that the description of the property is disputed, and decree holder has sold some property to a third person during the pendency of the suit and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. The trial court had issued a delivery warrant to the to the decree holder/respondents. The same was resisted by the petitioner before the trial court. Further, the court bailiff has taken wrong possession. Thereafter the respondents with assistant of the bailiff, came to the petitioners schedule property Sy.No.131/A21 and -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6271 WP No. 102915 of 2024 HC-KAR Sy.No.131/A1 and tried take the possession of both properties which is no way concerned to the respondents. The bailiff tried to take some other property which is not part of preliminary decree and there is suit pending in respect of Sy.No.131/1A2 before trial court in O.S. No.202/2020 which is still in adjudication and this Hon'ble court granted injunction to the petitioners. The petitioners have stopped the bailiff to enter in Sy. No 131/A1 and Sy. No.131/A2/1. It is contended that, these properties are not subject matter of the suit before the Trial court. It is contended that the petitioners stopped them to enter the property and now they are in lawful possession of the property but the bailiff filed a false report before the Trial Court on 16.12.2022 stating that, they have taken the possession from the petitioners. Immediately the petitioners have filed application under Section 47 of CPC to hold an enquiry ad to stall the execution of the possession warrant as the bailiff has illegally executed the possession warrant at -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6271 WP No. 102915 of 2024 HC-KAR another place. The decree holders have filed an objection to the said application.
5. The trial court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed the impugned order at Annexure-A, dismissing the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed this writ petition.
6. The respondent Nos.2 to 7 have filed a statement of objections contending that the instant writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on the facts. It is contended that the bailiff in his report clearly stated that they have properly identified the suit property. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents having colluded with the bailiff of the court have taken wrong possession of the property. He submits that the bailiff report, panchnama and delivery possession -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:6271 WP No. 102915 of 2024 HC-KAR receipt discloses that the bailiff has taken wrong possession of the property which was resisted by the petitioners. The bailiff has taken possession of Sy No. 131A2/1 in place of Sy No. 131/1C. The trial court ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioners to lead the evidence to make out that the wrong possession has been taken. The trial court ought to allowed the said application. The impugned order passed by the trial court is arbitrary and erroneous. Accordingly, on these grounds, prays to allow the petition.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the bailiff has rightly identified the property and ha rightly taken the possession of the property. The bailiff has not erred in identifying and taking the possession of the property. He submits that the trial court considering the judgment passed in appeal filed by the respondents/ judgments debtors, wherein this court held that the fact that the bailiff of the court had executed the possession warrant and another place is far from the truth and dismissed the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6271 WP No. 102915 of 2024 HC-KAR appeal. Accordingly, on these grounds, prays for the petition to be dismissed.
10. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
11. It is undeniable that the respondents have filed suit for possession against the petitioners in OS No.120/1998 regarding the suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by DHR's father in OS No.120/1998 and the suit filed by the petitioner's father in O.S No.134/2001 came to be dismissed. Against said the judgment and decree, the petitioner's father has preferred appeal bearing R.A No.77/2013 and R.A No.78/2013 and same was confirmed by the first appellate court. Furthermore, this court dismissed the RSA No.100942/2016 and RSA No.100943/2016 filed by the petitioners.
12. Thereafter, the DHR/Respondent has filed an execution petition No.181/2013 before the Trial Court to execute the judgment and decree passed in O.S
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6271 WP No. 102915 of 2024 HC-KAR No.120/1998. The petitioners have filed application under Section 47 of CPC to hold an enquiry ad to stall the execution of the possession warrant as the bailiff has illegally executed the possession warrant at another place. However, the trail court dismissed the said application by passing the impugned order at Annexure-G.
13. Admittedly, the warrant was issued on 22.07.2022 for possession, pursuant to which the bailiff proceeded to take possession.
14. It is pertinent to note that, in both the suits aforementioned i.e., between the same parties, the petitioners herein admitted the identity of the properties and have raised no objections as to the identification of the suit properties. Further, they have also taken no contention that they are in possession of the property.
15. Further, from the perusal of the order passed in WP. No.100021/2023 it becomes evident that the judgment debtors had assailed the order issuing the delivery warrant.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6271 WP No. 102915 of 2024 HC-KAR Wherein the coordinate bench of this court recorded a finding in Para No.7 that the judgment debtors want to take advantage of the fact that subject matter of the suit was originally Sy No.131/1B and the same is assigned new number as Sy No.131/1K and if the same is translated in English, that will be Sy No.131/1C measuring 12 guntas. The said change is reflected in decree passed in RA. No.77 of 2013.
16. Considering the order passed by the coordinate bench of this court, the trial court has rightly passed the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the trial court is just and proper. Further, it is settled that the executing court cannot go beyond decree. The scope of enquiry in execution petition is very limited.
17. Admittedly, the present petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the scope of interference under Article 227 is very narrow in view of the dictum laid in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6271 WP No. 102915 of 2024 HC-KAR reported in AIR 2015 SC 3269. For the foregoing discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE AC CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20