Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 71071 (KAR)

MRS M LALITHA D/O LATE MR MUNIYELLAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR MR B KRISHNAPPA v. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA

CCC/209/2022 · 2025-07-31

Anu Sivaraman, Rajesh Rai K

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29840-DB CCC No. 209 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 209 OF 2022 BETWEEN: MRS M. LALITHA D/O. LATE MR MUNIYELLAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HER L.R. MR. B. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE MR. BUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS NO.39, 5TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN LAKSHMINARAYANAPURAM BANGALORE - 560 021 …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI MALLESAPPA L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O. LATE MR. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 2. K. MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE MR. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 3. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE MR. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29840-DB CCC No. 209 of 2022 4. M. NARAYANA SWAMY S/O. LATE MR. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KATTUGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, PIN: 560 037. …ACCUSED (BY SRI N.V. VASANTH, ADVOCATE) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR CONTEMPT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN AS MUCH AS THE ACCUSED HAVE DELIBERATELY DISOBEYED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.54249-250 OF 2014 (GM-CPC) DATED 26.02.2015 AND FURTHER FOR HAVING MADE FALSE SUBMISSION BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CCC NO.1025/2015, ON 07.10.2015 TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY FURNISHED SECURITY AND BASED ON THE SAID SUBMISSION THIS HON'BLE COURT PLEASED TO DROP THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29840-DB CCC No. 209 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The contempt of the Court case is filed alleging non-compliance of the directions contained in the judgement dated 26.02.2015 in W.Ps. No.54249-250- 2014. 3. The Writ petitions above stated were disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to release the entire enhanced compensation amount subject to the respondents furnishing security for the said sum and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. 4. The accused No.1 is not a party in the execution petition against which the complainant has secured the order/direction by this Court to release the entire enhanced compensation amount subject to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29840-DB CCC No. 209 of 2022 accused furnishing security for the said sum. As the subject matter of the schedule property in the suit was not allotted to accused No.1 out of their family partition nor has he received any amount, hence he has not violated any terms of the order of this Court. Hence, he discharged in the contempt petition. 5. Accused No.3 being a decree holder in Execution Petition No.2343/2011, has received the entire compensation amount then awarded by furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial court, the same was accepted on 20.01.2016, as there is no violation of the order of this Court, thereby he is discharged in the Contempt Petition. 6. Accused No.2 and 4, by oversight instead of furnishing the security in Execution Petition No.296/2010, they have furnished the security in Ex.No.2363/2011, after due verification and realising the mistake so also as per the direction of the trial Court, accused No.2 and 4 have - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29840-DB CCC No. 209 of 2022 furnished fresh security to the satisfaction of the trial Court, after acceptance, the trial Court have released the entire compensation amount as per the decree. Thereby, accused No.2 and 4 have fully complied with the order of this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have furnished security for withdrawal of the enhanced compensation amount, as such, nothing survives for further consideration in the matter. 8. The Contempt of Court case is accordingly dropped. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35