- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.27027 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: JATHAPPARAI S/O APPAYYARAI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOLADAMULE, BETTAMPADY VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTUR TALUK D K PIN-574259 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIKAS M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . JAYANATHI H PAKKALA W/O B HARISHCHANDRA PAKKAL AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O BEERAMALE HILL ROAD POST : DARBE, PUTTUR D K PIN-574259 2 . MOHANDAS RAI S/O K S VITTALARAI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O MITHADKA, PANAGE VILLAGE POST: PANAJE, PUTTUR TALUK PIN-574259 - 2 - 3 . ASHALATHA SHETTY W/O SHANKARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O PARARIGUTHU MODANKAPU VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK D.K PIN-574259 4 . K SADASHIVA RAI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O DUGGAMMA R/O MITHADKA, PANAGE VILLAGE POST: PANAJE PUTTUR TALUK D.K.-574259 5 . KOCHANNARAI S/O APPAYYARAI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOLADAMULE BETTAMPADY VILALGE AND POST, PUTTUR TALUK D.K.-574259 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; V/O DATED 24.01.2024 PETTION IS DISMISSED AS ABATED AGAINST R4 & R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1908, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2019 PASSED IN EX CASE NO.15/2012 IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR, D.K VIDE ANENXURE-A AND ETC. - 3 - THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of certiorari to quash the Order dated 30.05.2019 in Ex. Case No.15/2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur,D.K. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.75/1994. 3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are referred as arrayed before this Court. 4. The brief facts of the case are that:- The respondent herein filed O.S.No.75/1994 for possession and mesne profits which was decreed with cost on 29.07.2022 by decreeing that the respondents are directed to handover possessing of suit schedule property - 4 - and issue relation to mesne profit and improvement were left open for consideration in Final Decree Proceedings. 5. The petitioner herein was a defendant in O.S.No.75/1994, filed by the respondent herein; seeking possession and mesne profits in respect of the suit schedule property. By judgment and decree dated 29.07.2002, the suit was decreed with costs, directing the petitioner and other defendants to hand over possession of the suit schedule property, while issues relating to mesne profits and improvements were reserved for determination in final decree proceedings. 6. Subsequently, the respondent initiated F.D.P.No.1/2003 before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Puttur, D.K., under Order XX Rule 12 and Section 151 CPC, for determination of mesne profits. By order dated 19.07.2010, the said petition was allowed, directing the petitioner and two others to pay Rs.10,200/- towards mesne profits accrued as of 01.04.1994, along with Rs.10,200/- per annum towards mesne profits for the period from 01.04.1994 to 10.10.2002. The respondent - 5 - was, however, directed to pay Rs.8,000/- to the petitioner towards improvements to the suit property. 7. The following points arose for its consideration in F.D.P.No.1/2003:- (i) Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled for mesne profits from 1.4.1994 till 10.10.2002? If so at what rate? (ii) Whether the respondents prove that they are entitled for the improvement as contended in para 23 of the written statement? (ii) What order? 8. Based on the pleadings and documentary evidence, the Principal Civil Judge in F.D.P.No.1/2003 observed as under:- 19. …..the suit schedule property was delivered to the possession of the petitioners on 10.10.2000. Hence from 1.4.1994 till 10.10.2002 the respondents were in illegal possession of plaint A schedule property. Hence to that period in my opinion the petitioners are entitled for the mesne profits. Here the R.W.1 admits that from 1974 to 1981 the income of plaint A schedule property was 20 mudi paddy, 250 coconuts and 6000 to 7000 areca and he was paying in the form of geni 13 mudi rice, Rs 6000/- for areca and 200 coconuts. - 6 - Here to prove the same the respondents have not produced any documents. To prove their assertion the petitioners relied on Ex. P4 to Ex P7. By considering all these documentary and oral evidence I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for mesne profits from 1.4.1994 of 200 Kgs. of areca, 20 mudi paddy and 200 coconuts. Hence the respondents have to pay mesne profits that fell due to 1.4.1994 of 200 Kgs. of areca at the rate of Rs.40/- per Kg., 20 muras of paddy at the rate of Rs.80/- per mura and 200 coconuts at the rate of Rs.3/- per nut, totally Rs.10,200/- upto 1.4.1994. From the 1.4.1994 fill the date of delivery ie.. 10.10.2002 the respondents are liable to pay mesne profits of 200 Kgs. of areca, 20 muras of paddy and 200 coconuts, areca at the rate of Rs.40/- per Kg., paddy at the rate of Rs.80/- per mura and coconut at Rs.3/- per nut. 20. Further the respondents also proved that by obtaining loan from the bank they planted areca plants and coconut plants and also installed pump set in the suit schedule property. Hence in my opinion the respondents to install pump set in the suit schedule property have incurred at that time Rs.5,000/- and to plant areca plants and coconut plants they have incurred Rs.3,000/-. Hence to these improvements only the respondents are entitled. The further argument of the respondents that they dug a paddy fiat and water tank is not established before this Court. Hence I answer point No.1 in the affirmative holding that - 7 - the petitioners are entitled for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.10,200/- per year till the filing of the suit and at the rate of Rs.10,200/- per year from 1.4.1994 till 10.10.2002 and point No.2 is answered in the affirmative holding that the respondents are entitled for improvements for Rs.8,000/-. 9. In the light of the above observation the following Order was passed:- The petition filed by the petitioners under Order 20 Rule 12 and Section 151 of C.P.C. is hereby allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,200/- (ten thousand two hundred) as mesne profits in respect of suit schedule property that fell due on 1.4.1994. Further the respondents are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,200/- (ten thousand two hundred) per annum towards meene profits in respect of suit schedule property from 1.4.1994 till 10.10.2002. The petitioners are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- to the respondents towards the improvements in respect of plaint A schedule property. The respondents after deducting the said sum of Rs.8,000/- from the amount payable by them to the petitioners they have to pay the remaining amount. - 8 - There is no order as to costs. 10. Pursuant thereto, the respondent filed Execution Case No. 15/2012 before the Court of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K., seeking enforcement of the said order. Despite the decree having been passed against three persons, only the petitioner and respondent No.5 were arrayed as respondents in the execution proceedings, and by memo dated 05.01.2018, the claim against respondent No.5 was not pressed. Notwithstanding this, the Court below, by order dated 30.05.2019, directed the petitioner to pay the decreetal mesne profits. 11. Being aggrieved by the continuation of the execution proceedings without impleading all judgment debtors and without proof of the petitioner’s financial means, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition, having no other efficacious alternative remedy. - 9 - 12. The Execution Court observed that the decree holder has filed the Exe.Case No.15/2012 seeking recovery of mesne profits decreed in FDP No.1/2003, amounting to Rs.89,154/-. In support of the claim, the decree holder examined himself as PW.1 and marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, asserting that the judgment debtor possesses sufficient means, including ownership of a residential house for which he regularly pays revenue tax to the State. On the other hand, the judgment debtor contended that the said house was granted by the Government in the year 2012, that he had suffered a fall rendering him unable to work and that he lacks the means to satisfy the decreetal amount. The reliance was placed on K. Karunakar Shetty v. Syndicate Bank, Manipal, reported in AIR 1990 Kar, wherein it was held, under Sections 51 and 58 and Order XXI Rule 38 of the CPC, that detention for non-payment of a decree requires proof of sufficient means and mala fide intention on the part of the judgment debtor. - 10 - 13. Further it was observed that upon cross- examination, however, the judgment debtor admitted to owning the said property, paying electricity and revenue taxes, and having three adult children who are gainfully employed. It was further elicited that he has pursued litigation against the decree holder for over 30 years. The decree holder disputed the judgment debtor’s plea of incapacity, contending that he continues agricultural work. On evaluation of the evidence and documents relied on by both parties, it is clear that the judgment debtor is possessed of sufficient means and has mala fide intent in seeking to evade payment of mesne profits. 14. In view of the same, the Execution Court passed the following Order:- The JDR is having the sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount mesne profits. Hence Jdr is directed to pay the decreetal mesne profits amount. For payment. - 11 - 15. It is contented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the petitioner owns only one house, which was granted by the State Government in the year 2012, and that the petitioner, having suffered a fall, is unable to move, has no means, and is incapable of working, thereby lacking the capacity to satisfy the decreetal amount. Furthermore, though the decree was passed against three persons, including the petitioner, only the petitioner and respondent No.5 were arrayed as respondents in the execution proceedings, and by filing a memo dated 05.01.2018, the claim against respondent No.5 was not pressed, resulting in the entire decree being sought to be executed solely against the petitioner. 16. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Damera Narasimha Reddy v. Sayed Ibrahim passed in C.R.P.2674/2005 dated 25.07.2005. 17. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side. - 12 - 18. On hearing the submissions of the petitioner and Respondent Counsels, on perusal of the material on record and the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it appears that, the petitioner is one of the defendants in O.S.No. 75 of 1994 filed by the Respondent herein which was suit for possession and mesne profits and the same qwas decreed with costs on 29.07.2022 by decreeing that the respondents are directed to hand over the ‘A’ suit schedule property and further a proper is to be held under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC in respect of mesne profits and improvements, accordingly preliminary decree was drawn and thereafter the final decree proceedings were initiated and there it eas considered under Order 20 Rule 12, the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,200/- as mense profits in respect of suit schedule property from 1.4.1994 to 10.10.2002. Thereafter, the respondents herein had filed execution petition no. 15 of 2012 on the file of JMFC Puttur, DK for execution of the order dated 19.07.2010. Further it is observed that the order was passed against three persons including the petitioner, only - 13 - petitioner and respondent no-5 were arrayed as Respondents and thereafter the petitioner not pressed the claim against the Respondent no.5 by filing a memo. 19. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgment of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Damera Narsimha Reddy v. Sved Ibrahim, reported in 2005 SCC OnLine AP 563 : AIR 2005 AP 482 at Para no-8 which reads as follows: 8. The concept of joint and several liability implies that the decree-holder can choose to proceed against all or any of the persons so held liable and, the discharge of the liability by one, would enure to the benefit of all others. Conversely, the satisfaction reported by the decree-holder in respect of one of the judgment-debtors must hold good for the others also. It is impermissible to divide the liability between such judgment-debtors. The liabilities under the decree, would subsist against all, till it is discharged but if one of them is discharged completely, rest of them stand on the same footing. The decree-holder does not have the liberty or the facility to divide the liability among the judgment-debtor and choose to recover part thereof from the individual judgment- debtors. It would have been certainly possible for the respondents 1 and 2, to proceed against the petitioner, had his liability been joint, with that of the - 14 - 3rd respondent, as distinguished from joint and several. 20. As could be seen from the above judgment it reveals that the liabilities under the decree would subsist against all till it is discharged but if one of them is discharged completely, rest of them stand on the same footing. The Decree Holder does not have the liberty or the facility among the judgment Debtors and to choose to recover the part thereof from the individual debtors. In view of the above discussion, there are no merits in this petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV