Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekar S/O. Late M G Muddaiah vs Puttamma Since Dead By Lrs on 28 August, 2012
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 28th DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4380 OF 2011 (GM-CPC)
Between :
Chandrashekar,
S/o. Late. M.G. Muddaiah,
Aged About 50 Years,
R/o. Mare Gowdanaahalli Village,
Keregodu Hobli,
Mandya Taluk & Dist. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. D.S.Hosmath, Adv.)
And :
1. Puttamma,
Since Dead By Lrs
M.S.Roopashri,
W/o. K.S. Santhosh Kumar
Aged About 26 Years,
R/o. Sathya Nilaya,
Boregowda Extension,
Near LIC Office, Mandya
2. Gowramma,
D/o. M. Mahalngaiah &
W/o. Shankare Gowda ,
2
Aged : Major
R/o.Kothanahalli Village,
Koppa Hobli,
Maddur Taluk
3. Lakshmamma,
W/o. M.C.Thothappa and
D/o. M.Mahalingaiah,
Aged : Major,
R/o. Margowdanahalli Village,
Keregodu Hobli,
Mandya Taluk
4. Saraswathamma,
D/o. Mahalngaiah &
W/o. H.Lingegowda,
Aged : Major,
Advocate, Shankranagar,
Mandya City
Since Dead By Lrs :
4(a) Shri.H.Lingegowda,
Aged About 71 Years,
(Husband) R/A Ist Cross,
Shankar Nagar,
Mandya
4(b) H.L.Ravishankar
Aged About 37 Years,
(Son) R/A Ist Cross,
Shankar Nagar,
Mandya.
4(c) H.L.Thejeswini,
3
W/o. A. C.Devarajegowda
Aged About 35 Years,
(Daughter) R/A Ist Cross,
Shankar Nagar,
Mandya.
4(d) H.L. Mamatha
W/o. B.S.Siddaraju
Aged About 32 Years,
(Daughter) R/A
Ist Cross, Shankar Nagar,
Mandya
4(e) H.L. Rajendra Babu
Aged About 30 Years,
(Son) R/A Ist Cross,
Shankar Nagar,
Mandya
5. Vijayarathna,
D/o. M.Mahalingaiah
Major, W/o. K. Gangadharappa
"E" Block, Kuvempu Nagar,
Mysore City
6. M.Prabhamani,
D/o. M.Mahalingaiah
Aged : Major,
W/o. B.K. Chandrashekare Gowda
No. 446, 1st stage,
"Vasantha Nilaya"
Visveswara Nagar,
Mysore City
4
7. M.Sunandamma,
D/o. M.G.Muddaiah
Major, W/o.Nagaraju
Heath Department,
Behind Karnataka Talkies,
Leelavathi Extension,
Maddur Town
8. Sumithra Devi,
D/o. M.G Muddaiah &
Major, W/o. Honnegowda,
No. 66, Chowdeswari Nilaya,
Ist Cross, 2nd Stage,
Udayagiri Extension
Mysore City
9. M.Sudamani,
D/o. M.G Muddaiah &
Major, W/o. G. S.Nagaraju
Executive Engineer 3rd Cross,
Shankar Nagar, Mandya Dist.
10. M.Malathi,
D/o. M.G. Muddaiah &
W/o. C.S.Somashekar,
Asst. Engineer (KRS),
Krishnaraja Sagar,
Srirangapatna Taluk,
Mandya Dist.
11. Harsavathi,
D/o. M.G.Muddaiah &
W/o. M.Shivanna, Major,
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC,
5
Bagepalli,
Kolar Dist.
12. M.Shivaramu,
Dead By Lrs
12(a) Sharadamma,
W/O. M. Shivaramu
Aged About 55 Years,
12(b) Yogamani M.S.
W/o. Rudresh.M.R.,
Aged About 35 Years,
D/o. M. Shivaramu,
4th Cross, Subash Nagar,
Mandya
12(c) Jyothi M.S.,
W/o. Channegowda &
Aged About 33 Years,
Sit Corner,
"Panchavati Nilaya"
Ashok Nagar,
Tumkur Town
12(d) Manjula M.S.,
W/o. Ravishankar &
Aged About 30 Years,
D/o. M.Shivaramu,
"Ruchitra Nilaya",
Gooligowda Circle,
V.V. Nagar,
Mandya City
12(e) Roopashree M.S.,
6
W/o. Santhosh &
Aged About 26 Years,
D/o. M.Shivaramu
"Sowmya Nilaya",
2nd Cross,
Bandigowda Layout,
Mandya City
13. M.G Raju,
S/o.M.Mahalingaiah
Advocate,
Ramegowda Building,
Opp. Forest office,
Subash Nagar,
Mandya City
14. M.Suresh,
S/o.M.G.Muddaiah
Major, Since Dead By His Lrs
14(a) Smt. K.C.Kavitha,
Aged 35 years,
Maregowdanahalli,
Keregodu Hobli
Mandya City
14(b) Kum. M.S.Sarika
Aged About 14 Years,
D/o. M. Suresh,
Since Minor R/By Court
Guardian,
R/A Maregowdanahalli
Keregodu Hobli,
Mandya Taluk
7
14(c) M.S. Abishek Gowda
Aged About 12 Years,
S/o. M. Suresh,
Since Minor R/By Court
Guardian R/A Maregowdanahalli
Keregodu Hobli,
Mandya Taluk
15. M.Sudarshan,
S/o. M.G. Muddaiah
Major, R/A Maregowdanahalli
Keregodu Hobli,
Mandya Taluk ... Respondents
(By Sri. T.K. Deepak, Adv. for C/R2,5 & 6
Shri.M.G. Sateesha, Adv. for R12(A-E),
R1, R3, R4(C), R7, R9, R11, R13, R4(B),
R4A, R15, R4(B), R4(E), R4(D), R10 are served,
Notice to R8 is dispensed with)
The writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records
and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing order vide
Annexure D, passed by the learned Additional Civil
Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM Mandya, in FDP No.13/1996
dated 11.11.2010 passed on IA'S and etc.
This writ petition coming on for Hearing, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
During the pendency of the FDP proceedings seeking to execute the judgment and decree for 8 partition, the decree holder filed an application under Section - 151 of CPC seeking for execution of delivery warrant and another application was filed by the legal representatives of respondent nos.6 and 7 seeking police help for demarcation of the partition. By the impugned order, the same was allowed. Hence, the present petition by the respondent no.10 - decree holder.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no question of seeking police help for execution of a preliminary decree and the procedure of law has been flouted. He further contends that police help could be sought by the decree holder for execution of the decree only if it is a final decree proceeding i.e., after conclusion of the execution of the decree and an appropriate order is passed.
9
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order.
4. On hearing the learned counsels and examining the impugned order, I'am of the considered view that so far as the impugned order is concerned, wherein police help is ordered for execution of decree, is unsustainable. Police help does not come into picture for execution of a preliminary decree. As per the procedure of law, police help could be sought at this stage. Police help for execution of the preliminary decree does not arise. Hence, ordering police help for execution is set-aside.
5. So far as the order passed on the application filed by the legal representatives of respondent nos.6 and 7 is concerned, I do not find any error to interfere. The application is allowed seeking police help so far as demarcating the properties. It has been passed in view of the submission of the decree holders that the 10 judgment debtors have obstructed execution of the delivery warrant for demarcating the properties. Hence, police help was sought. The Trial Court on considering the application has passed an appropriate order. So far as that aspect is concerned, the order is sustained.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following order:
ORDER
(a) The order granting police help for execution of the delivery warrant is set-aside.
(b) The application seeking police help for demarcating the property is sustained.
The petition is disposed off accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE JJ*