- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6022 WP No. 100852 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.100852 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. BASAPPA S/O. CHANNAPPA KABBINAD SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs., SMT. SHAMBAVI W/O. LATE BASAVARAJ @ BASAPPA KABBINAD, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. GUTTAL VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI-581108. 2. KUMAR. JEEVAN S/O. LATE BASAVARAJ @ BASAPPA KABBINAD, AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. GUTTAL VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI-581108, PETITIONER NO.2 IS THE MINOR RPTD BY MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER/ PETITIONER NO.1, SMT. SHAMBAVI W/O. LATE BASAVARAJ @ BASAPPA KABBINAD, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. GUTTAL VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI-581108. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.CHANNAVVA W/O. CHANNAPPA KABBINAD, Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.09 15:14:58 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6022 WP No. 100852 of 2017 AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GUTTAL VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI-581108. 2. SRI. VEERANNA S/O. CHANNAPPA KABBINAD, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs., 2(A). MOHANKUMAR S/O. VEERANNA KABBINAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUTTAL VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI-581108. 2(B). SHIVAKUMAR S/O. VEERANNA KABBINAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUTTAL VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI-581108. 2(C). MRUYUNJAYA S/O. VEERANNA KABBINAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUTTAL VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI-581108. 3. SMT. VEERAVVA W/O. CHANNAVEERAPPA ANTARAGOLI, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs., 3(A). BASAVARAJ S/O. CHANNAVEERAPPA ANTARAGOLI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUTTAL VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI-581108. 3(B). RAVIKUMAR S/O. CHANNAVEERAPPA ANTARAGOLI, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6022 WP No. 100852 of 2017 AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUTTAL VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI-581108. 4. SMT. NAGAVVA W/O. MALLAPPA MALAGI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SWAGI VILLAGE, TQ: HADAGALI-583219, DIST: BALLARI. 5. SMT. GOURAVVA W/O. KOTRAPPA PATTANASHETTAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GUTTAL VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI-581108. 6. KUMARI. SUPRIYA D/O. BASAPPA KABBINAD, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. GUTTAL VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI-581108. 7. KUMARI. SAGAR S/O. BASAPPA KABBINAD, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. GUTTAL VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI-581108. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH N.KINI AND SRI. NAGAPRASDAD S.KINI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2(A TO C) ARE SERVED; NOTICE TO R3 (A AND B), R4 TO R7 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN EXECUTION CASE NO.34/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, HAVERI, VIDE ANNEXURE-H IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6022 WP No. 100852 of 2017 THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the issuance of delivery warrant in E.P.No.34 of 2016. The said order is stayed by this Court vide order dated 09-02-2017 and same is in operation for almost 8 years. 2. Facts leading to the case are as under: Smt. Channawwa, who is the mother of the present petitioner herein, filed a suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession. The trial Court partly decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 13.08.2009. Plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No.198 of 2009. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and suit was decreed in entirety by modifying the relief insofar as schedule ‘B’ property is concerned. The First Appellate Court was of the view that that petitioner's mother Channawwa is also - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6022 WP No. 100852 of 2017 entitled for share in schedule ‘B’ properties to an extent of 16/35th share. 3. The records reveal that respondent No.1- Channawwa initiated final decree proceedings and final decree came to be drawn. Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed execution petition in EP No.34 of 2016. The Executing Court taking note of the fact that final decree is not stayed, has issued delivery warrant. 4. The present petitioners’ herein contend that this delivery warrant is issued without impleading the legal heirs of defendant No.2. 5. Having heard the learned counsels’ on record, this Court has given its’ anxious consideration to the records. 6. The petitioners contend that they were not parties to the final decree proceedings. However, it is perplexing that they have neither produced nor disclosed the final decree that was admittedly drawn pursuant to the preliminary decree passed in R.A. No. 198 of 2009. If - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6022 WP No. 100852 of 2017 indeed the petitioners were not involved in the final decree proceedings and were denied an opportunity to be heard, the proper legal recourse available to them would have been to challenge the said final decree in accordance with law. Yet, to date, no such challenge has been initiated. 7. The present case reflects a deeply unfortunate and distressing situation. A 67-year-old mother has been compelled to shuttle from one forum to another in pursuit of justice since 2007. Despite a preliminary decree having been passed in her favor as far back as 2009, she has not been able to enjoy the fruits of that decree. The execution proceedings, which ought to have culminated in relief for her, have instead been obstructed by an interim stay granted by this Court in 2017. Now, eight years later, in 2025, the stay continues to operate, having resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice. 8. It is appalling that the petitioner-children have denied their own mother her rightful and lawful share, forcing her to seek redress from the civil courts over an - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6022 WP No. 100852 of 2017 extended period. This Court, taking note of the prolonged injustice and the undue hardship suffered by an elderly and vulnerable woman, is not inclined to grant any further indulgence to the petitioners. The delivery warrant issued by the Executing Court is in strict conformity with both the preliminary decree passed by the Appellate Court and the consequent final decree. Once a final decree is drawn, and in the absence of any challenge or stay against it, the Executing Court is duty-bound to enforce the decree without delay. In this context, where the decree-holder is a helpless mother seeking rightful enforcement, the Court finds no reason to interfere. With these observations, the petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE AM/- Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10