- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.14149 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. PUSHPAVATHI W/O LATE VENUGOPAL NAIDU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/A 675, B B GARDEN ROAD KHILLE MOHALLA MYSURU-570004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.MADHUKAR NADIG, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI. K. PANDURANGA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2 . SRI K BABU S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS SINCE DEAD, REP. BY 2(A) UMA MAHESHWARI D/O LATE K.BABU AGE: 23 YEARS, R/A BEHIND TAPCMS GODOWN NEELAKANTANAGAR NANJANGUDU, MYSURU - 2 - 3 . SMT. BHARATHI @ RANI D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS LRS OF LATE JAYAMMA D/O LATE SRINIVAS NAIDU R/A BEHIND TAPCMS GODOWN NEELAKANTANAGAR NANJANGUDU NANJANGUDU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571313 4 . SMT RANGAMMA D/O LATE BALASUNDARA NAIDU W/O LATE VENKATESH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A 675, B B GARDEN ROAD KHILLE MOHALLA MYSURU-570004 RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.J.MADHWARAJ A/W SMT. VARALAKSHMI P, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & 3, SRI.VEERABHADRA SWAMY.H.P, ADV. FOR R-2(A), R-4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1908, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26/11/2020 PASSED BY THE X ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, IN EXE.NO.429/2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-M. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash/set aside the order dated 26.11.2020 passed by X Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysuru in Exe.No. 429/2016. 2. The Petitioner herein is the Judgment Debtor No.2 before the Executing Court and Respondent No.1 herein was the decree holder no.1 and respondent no. 2(a) is the LR of Respondent No. 2 who was the decree holder no.2 before the Executing Court and Respondent No.3 is the Decree Holder no.3. Respondent No.4 herein is the Judgment Debtor No.1. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: One Sreenivasa Naidu was having 5 daughters namely, Smt. Venkatalakshmamma @ Bebamma, Smt. Nagamma, Smt. Parvathamma, Smt. Salamma @ Shakunthalamma, Smt.Jayamma and two Sons namely, Sri S.Venugopala Naidu, husband of 2nd petitioner and Sri - 4 - S.Balasundara Naidu, father of the 1st petitioner. Venkatalakshamma @ Bebamma filed a suit in O.S.No.12/1976 before the I Munsiff, Mysuru against her brothers and sisters and sought for judgment and decree for partition and possession of the suit schedule property, wherein court has decreed 1/7th share to all brothers and sisters. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, Venugopala Naidu s/o Srinivasa Naidu and 1st petitioner and her mother and her two brothers had preferred a regular Appeal in R.A.No.33/1985 before the Small Causes Judge at Mysuru. Smt.Venkatalakshmamma @ Bebamma had also filed cross objections in the said appeal against the judgment rejecting her claim for 1/5th share wherein the Appellate Court has modified the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.12/1976 and declared that the daughters of Srinivasa Naidu are entitled to 1/5th share. Aggrieved by the Order of the appellate Court, S.Venugopala Naidu and wife and son of Sri.Balasundar Naidu, had preferred a Regular Second Appeal in R.S.A.No. 411/1986, before this court, wherein, this court has - 5 - dismissed the Second Appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the lower courts and first appellate courts. During the pendency of RSA No.411/1986, Venugopala Naidu died and his LRs have not been brought on record. After the dismissal of RSA, the Second petitioner herein and her children filed review petition in Review Petition No.776/2013 before this court wherein this court had rejected the review. Final Decree Proceedings in F.D.P.No.16/2013 has been filed for final decree before the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysuru. The Court commissioner was appointed for division of properties and he submitted his reports and based on said reports, final decree has been passed by the Order dated 14.06.2016. Based on the final decree passed in FDP No.16/2013, Execution Petition has been filed by in Execution Petition No.429/2016 before II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru. The petitioner after appearing in the said execution petition has filed I.A.No.1 under Section 151 of CPC - 6 - wherein, dismissal of execution petition has been sought. The Executing Court after hearing both the sides, rejected the application filed by the petitioners by an order dated 28.06.2018. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner herein and respondent no.4 have preferred writ petition no. 31579/2018 and as per the intervention of this court, the parties had settled the dispute amicably and petitioners and Respondent No. 4 have agreed to purchase the execution petition schedule property for total sale consideration amount of Rs.28 Lakhs, out of which the petitioner and Respondent No.4 have paid each Rs.2,50,000/- to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and agreed to get registered the sale deed on or before 17.01.2020 after paying balance sale consideration amount and filed a compromise petition on 16.10.2019 and the said writ petition has been disposed off. As the petitioner and respondent no.4 should have purchased the petition schedule property, since the JDR No.1 was not willing to purchase the half portion of the execution petition schedule property, respondents No. 1 to - 7 - 6 did not come forward to execute the sale deed and the same has been reported before the Trial Court/Executing court, wherein the Trial Court granted one more chance to register the sale deed on 21.01.2020. On 29.02.2020, the trial Court passed an order and held that the Respondent no. 1 to 3 have not executed the sale deed and also passed an order that the JDR No.2, i.e., petitioner herein shall get the sale deed executed in his favour by following the due course of law. As the matter stood thus, petitioner filed an application under Order XXI Rule 34 read with Section 151 of CPC, requesting to appoint commissioner to execute the sale deed in favour of V.Subramanya, the son of the petitioner herein. On 26.11.2020, the counsel for the petitioner was not present and petitioner’s son V. Subramanya was present before the court and he requested the court for grant of time and also requested to direct the commissioner to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of the half portion of the property. Then, the Trial Court has issued the delivery warrant against the - 8 - petitioner on 26.11.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the current writ petition has been filed. 4. Heard learned Counsels for petitioner, Respondents 1 and 3 and Respondent No.2(A). Respondent No.4 is served but unrepresented. 5. It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has failed to note the fact that as per the compromise petition filed in W.P. No. 31579/2018, the petitioner and the Respondent No.4 had agreed to purchase the execution petition schedule property for total sale consideration of Rs.28 Lakhs and petitioner had also paid Rs.2,50,000/- each to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as part of the sale consideration and thus petitioner had always been willing to perform his part of obligation. 6. It was also contended that after recording all the circumstances and facts has come to conclusion that the petitioner is ready to perform his duty and get registered the sale deed in his favour and also came to the conclusion - 9 - that the respondents 1 to 6 have not executed the sale deed as agreed by the parties in terms of the order of the High Court of Karnataka. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an application under Order XXI Rule 34 read with Section 151 of CPC, requesting to appoint a court Commissioner to register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner’s son and the said application came to be allowed. 7. It was further contended that the trial court has failed to note that the Respondent No.4 and the Respondent No. 1 to 3 have colluded each other with ulterior purposes and the respondent no.4 did not come to purchase the half portion of the execution schedule property. Respondent submitted that she is not ready to purchase the half portion and deliver the vacant possession. The Trial Court without considering the same has wrongly issued a delivery warrant against the petitioner which is contrary to law and liable to be quashed. - 10 - 8. It was also contended that Trial Court has failed to note that the petitioner and the respondent have paid Rs.2,50,000/- each to the respondents no. 1 to 3 as part of sale consideration amount before this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.31579/2018, the trial court without directing the respondents no.1 to 3 to refund the said amount to the petitioner and respondent no.4 has only ordered for issuance of delivery warrant. 9. It can be observed from the impugned order that on 18.01.2020 the Decree Holders filed a memo stating that on 17.01.2020 all the decree holders present before the sub-registrar, Mysuru (South) with Khatha certificate from morning 10.30 till evening 5.30 but the Legal Heir of JDR No.1 one Mr.Subramanya arrived to the Sub-registrar office around 4.30 pm with a draft sale deed. When the decree holders went through the draft sale deed, they could come to know that schedule mentioned is not correct and also it was not tallying with the commissioner’s sketch which is part of final decree and Subramanya did not agree for correction. - 11 - 10. It can be further observed from the impugned order that after negotiation, both the counsels sought one more chance and the an other opportunity was granted on 21.01.2020 and to report the same to the court on 22.01.2020. It can be seen from the impugned order that on 22.01.2020 DHR submitted that since JDR No.2 was not ready on 21.01.2020 for registration, he prays for issuance of delivery warrant against JDR No.2 but JDR No.2 submitted that at the time of registration one Mrs. Gowramma i.e., JDR No.1 was not present before the Sub- Registrar. Hence on 21.01.2020 registration was not done. 11. In fact, it can be clearly seen from the impugned order that Sri.V Subramanya appeared before the trial court and submitted that they are not ready for sale deed as per I.A.No.1 as well as order of this Court in W.P.No. 31579/2018 connected with W.P.No.31577-31578 of 2018. 12. It can also be seen from the impugned order that DHR filed a memo stating that despite the expiry of the last date given by this court to get the properties - 12 - registered on or before 17.01.2020, Judgment Debtors have been using all types of delay tactics and involved item No. blame game and wasting the precious time of the court and decree holders and ultimately, since the DHRs have not executed the sale deed as agreed by the parties item No. terms of order of this Court, trial court posted the matter for further steps and ultimately issued the delivery warrant to deliver the vacant premises. 13. On hearing the submissions of the counsels, on perusal of the material on record and on perusing the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it is observed that a batch of writ petitions in Writ petition No.14304/2020 connected with W.P.No.14075/2020, W.P.No.14112/2020 and W.P.No.14295/2020 filed by the petitioner and respondents in connection to the Order dated 26.11.2020 passed by X Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysuru in Exe.No. 429/2016, wherein all the connected writ petitions are disposed off with the following directions: - 13 - [a] The writ petitions stand disposed of calling upon the executing Court to defer the execution of the delivery warrants until 17.12.2022 with liberty just to the petitioners to file a report on a possible compromise. [b] If such a report of settlement is not filed on or before 17.12.2022, the executing Court, upon the corresponding respondents who have received Rs.5 Lakhs in terms of the Joint Memo as recorded in W.P. No. 31579/2018 and connected petitions, depositing such amount without interest, shall ensure delivery of possession of the respective portions in the subject property. 14. In view of the above discussion, the impugned Order dated 26.11.2020 passed by X Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysuru in Exe.No.429/2016, is deferred for execution of the delivery warrants and also ensure the delivery of the possession of respective portions of the subject property. - 14 - 15. It appears that nothing survives in the writ petition in view of the joint memo as recorded in WP No.3157 of 2018 and connected petitions, however this writ petition is pending for adjudication till date. Respondent No.2(a) filed an affidavit on 19-08-2025 stating that she is willing to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner of her 1/3 share with respect to execution schedule property in Execution Petition No.429 of 2016 and further, in view of the above, the Executing Court is directed to take steps for the execution of the registered sale deed by the legal heir of the Judgment Debtor No.2/Respondent No.2(a) herein. Further it is observed that petitioner is still making efforts in getting the registered sale deed in terms of the joint memo filed in Writ Petition No.3157/2018 and connected writ petitions and further directed that executed court to consider the efforts of the petitioner and take steps in accordance with law in getting the registration of the respective shares from the other Decree Holders by giving opportunity to the parties concerned. - 15 - With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV