SRI MUNIYAPPA vs SMT KALAVATHI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56520
WP No. 29276 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010627182024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAAT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT PETITION NO. 29276 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MUNIYAPPA
SON OF LATE ANCHE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS,
ND
RESIDING AT NO. 156/1, 2 BLOCK,
RD
3 STAGE, SANEGURUWANAHALLI,
BASAVESHWARANAGARA,
BENGALURU – 560079.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.KIRAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. KALAVATHI
WIFE OF SRI. V.RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BYAPANAHALLI,
BANNERGHATTA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 083.
2. SMT. SUNANDA
WIFE OF SRI. DEVARAJU.S,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BEHIND RENUKANATHA TEMPLE,
ND
2 MAIN, DODDABOMMASANDRA,
BENGALURU - 560 097.
3. SRI. MUNIGOWDA
SON OF SRI. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BANDEHOSUR VILLAGE,
KANNUR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
Digitally signed by
JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56520
WP No. 29276 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010627182024
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU.
4. SMT. GOWRAMMA
WIFE OF SRI. GOPALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KANNUR VILLAGE,
SIDURAHALLI HOBLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU.
5. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
WIFE OF SRI. MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BANDEHOSUR VILLAGE,
KANNUR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SARMIN RAHAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH BY A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT, THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD.22.10.2024 (IN ISSUING DELIVERY WARRANT
AGAINST THE PETITIONER ANNX-A) PASSED BY THE 74TH
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT,
BENGALURU (CCH-75) IN EX.NO. 25412/2023.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
2
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56520
WP No. 29276 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010627182024
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition filed by the petitioner/Judgment
Debtor (JDR), seeks to challenge an order dated
th
22.10.2024 in Ex.No.25412/2023 passed by the 74
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit,
Bengaluru (CCH-75) (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order, the execution
petition was allowed, and the office was directed to issue a
delivery warrant against the petitioner/JDR for handing
over vacant possession of the relevant portion of Item No.
3 of the final decree property, as described in Schedule
‘B’.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/JDR submits
that the petitioner/JDR is aged more than 90 years and
that he has no other place to go. However, the
respondents who are the decree holders and his children,
are in his old age driving him out of his place of residence.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/Decree Holders
on the other hand contends that originally a suit for
3
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56520
WP No. 29276 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010627182024
partition was filed between the parties. The suit was
decreed on 31.10.2008 (preliminary decree) and
thereafter final decree proceedings were also passed on
27.05.2023 by way of a compromise. It is submitted that
in terms of the compromise, the petitioner had to vacate
the Item No. 3 property (which is also marked as Schedule
A property in the decree). If the parties decided to dispose
of the same, the petitioner/JDR would vacate such
property. The learned counsel for the respondents further
submits that since the petitioner/JDR did not vacate the
property, the respondents were constrained to file an
Execution Petition. However, despite warrants of
attachment being directed by the Executing Court, the
petitioner/JDR has failed to vacate.
4. By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court
examined the decree and the execution proceedings and
found on an examination of the material available, the
shares that were jointly allotted to Decree Holders 1 and 2
and respondents 3 to 5 by way of the compromise decree,
4
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56520
WP No. 29276 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010627182024
were the Schedule ‘A’ property. The petitioner/JDR was
allowed to continue in the property until May 2023 by
paying a monthly rent and a refundable advance amount.
It was further stated that the respondents are unable to
alienate the suit schedule property for a prospective
purchaser due to non-vacating of the Schedule ‘B’
property occupied by the petitioner/JDR. Thus, the Trial
Court examined the objections and found the objections to
be unsustainable and thus the Impugned Order was
passed.
5. This Court has also examined the compromise decree
dated 27.05.2023. Paragraph 3 of the compromise decree
dated 27.05.2023, sets out the following:
“3. Presently the Respondent No.1 is residing in one
portion of the Ground Floor of the Item No.3 property and
the parties have jointly agreed to permit the Respondent
st
No.1 to reside there till 31 May, 2023. In case if the
Respondent No.1 continues to reside there, then he shall
pay the rent of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only)
per month along with a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh Only) as refundable security deposit jointly to
the Petitioners No.1 & 2 and Respondents No.2 to 5. In
case, if the parties decide to dispose the Item No.3
property then the Respondent No.1 shall vacate the same
to enable the parties to dispose the same.”
5
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56520
WP No. 29276 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010627182024
5.1 The compromise schedule properties are as set out
below:
COMPROMISE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES
Item No.3:
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing
Kaneshumari No.24, Saneguravanahalli, Yeshwanthapura
Hobli, Bangalore, Now No.156/1, II Block, III Stage,
Sanegurvanahalli, Basaveshwara Nagara, Bangalore,
measuring 90’X58’ and bounded on the:
East by : Property of Muniswamy and share of
Nanjamma
West by : Patel Hanumanthappa’s Property
North by : Hanumanthapp and kempaiah’s Property
South by : Road
Item No.4:
All that piece and parcel of Vacant site formed out of
Sy.No.125, Saneguravanahalli, Yeshwanthpura Hobli,
Bangalore, Now bearing No.112, III Block, III Stage,
Near Anjaneya Temple, Sanegurvanahalli,
Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore, measuring 45’X43’ and
bounded on the:
East by : Venkataramanappa’s Property
West by : Road
North by : Open Space of Anjaneya Temple
South by : Thammayalppa’s House
5.2 The decree also references the schedule ‘A’ property
as Item No. 3 (Schedule ‘A’ property) as follows:
“SCHEDULE A PROPERTY
Item No.3:
6
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56520
WP No. 29276 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010627182024
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing
Kaneshumari 24, Saneguruvanahalli, Yeshwanthpura
nd
Hobli, Bengaluru, Now No.156/1, 2 Block, III Stage,
Saneguruvanahalli, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru,
measuring 90’X58’ bounded on the:
East : Property of Muniswamy and share of Nanjamma
West : Patel Hanumanthappa’s Property
North : Hanumanthappa and Kempaiah’s property
South : Road”
6. It is not disputed that in terms of paragraph No.3 of
the compromise decree, if the parties decide to dispose
the Item No.3 property, the petitioner/JDR would vacate
the property. However, no document has been placed on
record much less an agreement to sell that has been
entered into by the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that
they have a prospective buyer and that the respondents
would place on record the documents evidencing the
same.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/JDR submits
that given the statement made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner/JDR, the petition may be disposed of
7
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56520
WP No. 29276 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010627182024
permitting them to agitate their contentions before the
Trial Court, if such details are placed on record.
9. The petition is disposed of with the following
directions:
(i) The respondents shall place on record, within 4
weeks from the date of this order, documents
evidencing the fact that they have a prospective
buyer for the schedule property;
(ii) The learned Executing Court shall examine the
documents and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law after providing an opportunity
to the petitioner/JDR.
9.1 All pending applications stand closed.
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
KS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60
Digitally signed by
TARA VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
8