- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51406 WP No. 34572 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 34572 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. PANDURANGA R (PANDU), S/O LATE RAJAMANIKYAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS SUN CITY ROAD LAST, KENGERI NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560060. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GANGARAJU C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MURGESH R., S/O LATE RAJAMANIKYAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT, No.55/1, OPP. TO MADIKESHWAMY MATA, ABHIMAN STUDIO ROAD, KENGERI, BENGALURU-560085. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN DATED 31/10/2025 EXECUTION PETITION No. 4209/2018 BY IN THE COURT OF LXIV ACC AND SJ, AT BENGALURU, BY ALLOWING THE IA. No.V UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/DECREE HOLDER IN EXECUTION PETITION No.4209/2018 AT ANNEXURE- A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51406 WP No. 34572 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Gangaraju C., learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition is filed by the judgment-debtor in O.S. No.9342/2015, decided on 19.02.2018 by the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (for short, 'the trial Court'), assailing the order dated 31.10.2025 passed on I.A. No.5 in Execution Case No.4209/2018 by the City Civil Judge at Bangalore City (for short, 'the Execution Court'). 2.1 The respondent had instituted the suit seeking a declaration and injunction against the petitioner and another defendant. The suit came to be decreed, declaring that the registered Will dated 20.10.1995 bearing No.103/1995-96, registered with the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri, Bengaluru, executed by deceased Rajamanikyam, is the last Will and testament of the testator. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51406 WP No. 34572 of 2025 2.2 The trial Court further ordered and declared that the Gift Deed dated 21.08.2012 bearing Registration No.BNG (U) KNGR/4790/2012-13, registered with the Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar (Kengeri), Bengaluru, in respect of the suit schedule property, is inoperative, invalid, null and void, and nonest in the eye of law. 2.3 The trial Court also restrained defendant No.2 from causing any illegal interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. 3. The respondent–decree holder filed an execution petition seeking enforcement of the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2018 passed in O.S. No.9342/2015. In the course of the execution proceedings, the decree holder filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a direction to the Inspector of Police, Kengeri Police Station, to break open the lock and hand over possession of the room to the decree holder. 3.1 The said application was opposed by the petitioner. The Execution Court, upon taking into consideration the fact - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51406 WP No. 34572 of 2025 that the judgment-debtor had violated the decree, allowed I.A. No.5 and directed that the lock of the petition schedule premises be broken open and possession thereof be handed over to the decree holder, with the assistance of the Inspector of Police, Kengeri Police Station, Bengaluru. The said order is assailed in the present writ petition. 4. Sri Gangaraju C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that although the petitioner had filed a written statement in O.S. No.9342/2015, the same was not considered by the trial Court. It is further submitted that the trial Court failed to afford the petitioner sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff. The learned counsel also contends that no opportunity was granted to adduce further evidence or to effectively cross-examine the plaintiff. It is lastly submitted that the judgment and decree are bereft of reasons and, therefore, unsustainable in law. 5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51406 WP No. 34572 of 2025 6. The petitioner is defendant No.2 in O.S.No.9342/2015. In that judgment, the following decree is issued: "Suit is hereby decreed with costs, as under; It is ordered and declared that, Registered Will Deed dated 20.10.1995 bearing No.103/1995-96 registered with The Sub-Registrar, Kengeri, Bengaluru, executed by deceased-Rajamanikyam is the Last Will of the testator. It is further ordered and declared that, Gift Deed dated 21.8.2012 bearing Reg. No.BNG (U)KNGR/4790/2012-13 registered with The Sub- Registrar, Jayanagar (Kengeri), Bengaluru, in respect of suit property is inoperative, invalid, null and void, and nonest in the eye of law. It is further ordered that, defendant No.2 is hereby perpetually restrained from causing illegal interference in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. And that a sum of Rs.1,04,555/- be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff on account of the costs of this suit." 7. The judgment and decree are dated 19.02.2018, and the execution petition was filed by the decree holder in the year 2018. The impugned order passed in the execution proceedings is dated 31.10.2025. The contentions urged in the present writ petition are untenable for more than one reason. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51406 WP No. 34572 of 2025 7.1 Though the decree was passed on 19.02.2018, the same has not been challenged till date. Consequently, the respondent is entitled to execute the decree. Under the decree, the petitioner is restrained from causing any illegal interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. 7.2 The findings recorded in the impugned order clearly indicate that the petitioner has repeatedly disobeyed the decree and has interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the respondent–decree holder. The contentions urged in the writ petition essentially assail the correctness of the judgment and decree, which cannot be gone into in execution proceedings. 7.3 The decree having attained finality, the decree holder is entitled to enjoy the benefits flowing therefrom. The petitioner, being bound by the decree, is restrained from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the face of continued disobedience and interference in violation of the decree, the Execution Court was justified in granting police protection. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51406 WP No. 34572 of 2025 7.4 The finding recorded by the Execution Court while granting police protection has not been specifically challenged in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to demonstrate any error, illegality, or perversity in the findings recorded by the Execution Court in the impugned order. No ground warranting interference with the impugned order is made out. 8. This petition being devoid of merits, accordingly stands dismissed. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8