- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52903 WP No. 5226 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 5226 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI M. SATISH S/O LATE M.T. MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT GURUDARSHAINI ESTATE MAVINAHALLI VILALGE KASABA HOBLI CHIKKAMGALURU TALUK - 577 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI AKSHAYA B.M, ADV.) AND: M/S CONSOLIDATED COFFEE LTD NOW KNOWN AS TATA COFFEE LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1913 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT POLLIBETTA, KODAGU KARNATAKA - 571 218. …RESPONDENT (BY MS. RIDHIMA T, ADV., FOR SRI THOMAS VELLAPALLY, ADV.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-Q ORDER DATED 20.09.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALUR AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.9 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS . THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52903 WP No. 5226 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff / Decree Holder with a prayer to set aside the order dated 20.09.2021 passed on I.A. No.IX in O.S.No.311 of 1989 by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Suit in O.S.No.311 of 1989 was filed before the jurisdictional civil Court at Chikkamagaluru by the petitioner herein against the respondent herein seeking the relief of declaration of title and possession in respect of 'B' schedule property. The said suit was opposed by the defendant by filing written statement. The trial Court had dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 05.09.1994 which was challenged by the plaintiff in R.A.No.87 of 1994. The first appellate Court had allowed R.A.No.87 of 1994 and had decreed the suit in O.S.No.311 of 1989 and consequently the defendant was directed to hand over possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.87 of 1994 by the first appellate Court was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52903 WP No. 5226 of 2022 unsuccessfully challenged by the defendant before this Court in RSA No.98 of 2002. Subsequently, I.A.No.IX was filed in O.S.No.311 of 1989 by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to amend the plaint by rectifying the extent of land as 2 acres 30 guntas. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court by order dated 23.11.2022 and assailing the said order, the defendant had approached this Court in W.P.No.9316 of 2015 C/w W.P.No.9317 of 2015, which was allowed by this Court on 03.07.2019 and the matter was remitted to the Trial Court to consider I.ANo.IX afresh. Thereafter, the order impugned has been passed by the Trial Court rejecting I.A.No.IX and being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the Court Commissioner, CW1, who was appointed in O.S.No.311 of 1989, has filed a report along with a sketch which clearly goes to show that defendant was in unauthorised occupation of 2 acres 30 guntas of land in Survey No.19, which is the schedule property in O.S.No.311 of 1989. The report of the Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52903 WP No. 5226 of 2022 Commissioner has been accepted in its entirety by the Trial court. The first appellate Court has recorded finding referring to the report of Court Commissioner, that defendant was found in possession of 2 acres 30 guntas of land in Survey No.19. The said finding has attained finality. He submits that plaintiff’s prayer No.(b) in OS No. 311 of 1989 is for possession of 'B' schedule property, after determination of the exact area of encroachment by the defendant through a Court Commissioner. Now, the Court Commissioner has submitted a report which shows that encroached area by defendant is 2 acre 30 guntas in Survey No.19. The Trial Court was therefore not justified in rejecting I.A.No.IX. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / defendant has argued in support of the impugned order and submits that petitioner as well as respondent have filed objections to the Court Commissioner's report. The Trial Court while rejecting I.A.No.IX has observed that Court Commissioner's report about encroachment of 2 acre 30 guntas of land in Survey No.19 by the defendant is without any basis. She submits that the application is filed belatedly without - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52903 WP No. 5226 of 2022 properly explaining the delay caused in filing the application. The Trial Court therefore was justified in rejecting the application and accordingly prays to dismiss the petition. 6. A perusal of the averments found in the plaint in O.S.No.311 of 1989 would go to show that plaintiff has alleged that defendant was in unauthorised possession of the 'B' schedule property which is a part of 'A' schedule property bearing Survey No.19 situated at Mavinahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk. The prayer (b) made in the plaint in O.S.No.311 of 1989 reads as follows: "For possession of the 'B' schedule property if necessary after determining the exact area of encroachment by the defendant through a Court Commissioner". 7. From the aforesaid it is apparent that the prayer for possession of 'B' schedule property was to be granted after determination of exact area of encroachment by defendant through a Court Commissioner, though in 'B' schedule of the plaint, the extent of encroached area in Survey No. 19 has been mentioned as 1 acre 19 guntas. During the course of trial in O.S.No.311 of 1989, a Court Commissioner was appointed by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52903 WP No. 5226 of 2022 the trial Court, who has submitted a report and it is not in dispute that commissioner's report was annexed with a sketch prepared by him. The commissioner's report along with the sketch has been marked as Ex.P8 in O.S.No.311 of 1989 and the commissioner was also examined as CW1 before the Trial Court. It is not in dispute that the commissioner's report has been accepted by the Trial Court in OS.No.311 of 1989 in its entirety. 8. A perusal of the Commissioner's report, more so, the sketch prepared by him which is annexed to his report would clearly go to show that the commissioner has recorded that the defendant was found in possession of 2 acre 30 guntas of land in Survey No.19 of Mavinahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk. It is relevant to mention here that the defendant had raised a contention in his written statement that they had perfected their title over 'B' schedule property by adverse possession. Though the Trial Court had dismissed O.S.No.311 of 1989, the first appellate Court having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the commissioner's report has decreed the suit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52903 WP No. 5226 of 2022 in O.S.No.311 of 1989 and a specific finding is recorded in R.A.No.87 of 1994 that the trial Court had erred in arriving at a conclusion that the defendant, who was found in possession of 2 acres 30 guntas of land in Survey No.19 as per the commissioner's report had perfected his title over the said land by adverse possession. The said finding of the Trial Court was set aside by the appellate Court and the suit in O.S.No.311 of 1989 was decreed and the defendant was directed to hand over the possession of the property to the plaintiff. This Court has confirmed the said judgment and decree in RSA No.98 of 2002 and has observed that the lower appellate Court had not committed any error even while considering the report of Court Commissioner (CW.1). 9. Therefore, it is apparent that the report of the commissioner has attained finality and a finding was recorded by the appellate Court that the possession of 2 acre 30 guntas of land in survey No.19 by the defendant was unauthorised. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter, and on the other hand, while rejecting IA.no.IX, has recorded a finding that the Court Commissioner's report to the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52903 WP No. 5226 of 2022 effect that defendant was in possession of 2 acres 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.19 was without any basis. This approach of the Trial Court is totally erroneous, more so, having regard to the fact that Commissioner's report was accepted in its entirety and having appreciated the said report, a finding is already recorded that defendant was found in possession of 2 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.19. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of PERIYAMMAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS VS V.RAJAMANI & ANOTHER - 2025 INSC 329, has observed that on technical grounds a decree-holder cannot be denied the fruits of the decree which has been granted to him by the jurisdictional Court after conducting a full-fledged trial in the case. In the said case, in paragraphs 62 & 63, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "62. A harmonious reading of Section 47 with Order XXI Rule 101 implies that questions relating to right, title or interest in a decretal property must be related to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The import of such a reading of the provisions is that only matters arising subsequent to the passing of the decree can be determined by an executing court under Section 47 and Order XXI Rule 101. Such - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52903 WP No. 5226 of 2022 reasoning is reinforced by the decisions of this Court in C.F. Angadi v. Y.S. Hirannayya reported in (1972) 1 SCC 191 and Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman reported in (1970) 1 SCC 670, wherein it has been held that while determining a question under Section 47, an executing court cannot go behind the decree and question the correctness of the same. 63. What flows from the position of law, as afore stated, is that the issues that ought to have been raised by the parties during the adjudication of the original suit cannot be determined by the executing court as such adjudication may undermine the decree itself. This Court in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 has held that the benefit of Section 47 cannot be availed to conduct a retrial causing failure of realisation of fruits of the decree. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: “24. In respect of execution of a decree, Section 47 CPC contemplates adjudication of limited nature of issues relating to execution i.e. discharge or satisfaction of the decree and is aligned with the consequential provisions of Order 21 CPC. Section 47 is intended to prevent multiplicity of suits. It simply lays down the procedure and the form whereby the court reaches a decision. For the applicability of the section, two essential requisites have to be kept in mind. Firstly, the question must - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52903 WP No. 5226 of 2022 be the one arising between the parties and secondly, the dispute relates to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Thus, the objective of Section 47 is to prevent unwanted litigation and dispose of all objections as expeditiously as possible. 25. These provisions contemplate that for execution of decrees, executing court must not go beyond the decree. However, there is steady rise of proceedings akin to a retrial at the time of execution causing failure of realisation of fruits of decree and relief which the party seeks from the courts despite there being a decree in their favour. Experience has shown that various objections are filed before the executing court and the decree- holder is deprived of the fruits of the litigation and the judgment-debtor, in abuse of process of law, is allowed to benefit from the subject-matter which he is otherwise not entitled to." 11. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting IA.no.IX. A person who has been granted a decree cannot be denied the fruits of the decree on technical grounds. So also, the person who has - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52903 WP No. 5226 of 2022 suffered a decree cannot be permitted to defy the decree raising technical grounds, and the Courts are required to ensure that a decree passed is effectively executed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.09.2021 passed on IA.no.IX in O.S.No.311/1989 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkamagalur, is set aside. Consequently, the prayer made in IA.no.IX is granted. Pending applications do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33