- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26221 W.P. No.48458/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.48458/2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: DR. H.M. VASANTHMOHAN SHETTY SINCE DIED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS. 1. VARIJA V. SHETTY W/O H.M. VASANTHA MOHAN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 2. P. SHARIN D/O H.M. VASANTHA MOHAN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 3. P. SACHIN SHETTY S/O H.M. VASANTHA MOHAN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 4. P. SAHAN SHETTY .P D/O H.M. VASANTHA MOHAN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT PALAJE HOUSE, PERDOORU VILLAGE PERDOOR POST UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576124 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K, ADV.,) AND: SOORANNA SHETTY .P SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS. 1. SMT. CHANDRAKALA VINUTHA B. SHETTY D/O LATE SURANNA SHETTY Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26221 W.P. No.48458/2018 W/O BHUJANGA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 2. SMT. MADHUBALA K. SHETTY D/O LATE SURANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 3. SRI. A. PADHAVEDHARA HEGDE S/O LATE SURANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT. GURUPRASAD NILAYA HIRIYADKA POST UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576113. 4. SYNDICATE BANK PERDURU BRANCH REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576124. 5. H. ASHOK MOHAN SHETTY S/O LATE MUDDANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. 6. H. CHANDRA MOHAN SHETTY S/O LATE MUDDANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. R5 & R6 R/AT. PALAJE HOUSE PERDURU VILLAGE, PERDURU POST UDUPI TALUK & DIST-576124. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AJITH ANAND SHETTY, ADV., FOR R1 & R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD:01.09.2018 PASSED BY COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT UDUPI IN ALLOWING THE MIS. PET NO.59/1995, VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26221 W.P. No.48458/2018 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 01.09.2018 passed in Misc.P.No.59/1995 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Udupi. 2. Heard. 3. Sri.Ranjan Kumar K., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the deceased Dr.H.M.Vasanth Mohan Shetty died on 25.02.2018. His death was reported by his son and without bringing the legal heirs of the said opponent, the impugned order came to be passed. It is submitted that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a memo dated 03.08.2018 stating that the legal heirs of the deceased Dr.H.M.Vasanth Mohan Shetty are already on record i.e. his brothers. It is further submitted that the petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased Dr.H.M.Vasanth Mohan Shetty claim to have interest in the property and without hearing them, the impugned order was passed. It is also submitted that the deceased Dr.H.M.Vasanth Mohan Shetty filed an application in I.A.No.11 praying to restrain the respondent Nos.1 to 3 from trespassing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26221 W.P. No.48458/2018 into the 'A' schedule property which was also not considered by the Trial Court in its proper perspective and also without appreciating the fact that the property is jointly owned by the deceased Dr.H.M.Vasanth Mohan Shetty and is not entitled for possession as sought by the auction purchaser. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, Sri.Ajith Anand Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court has clearly recorded a finding that the order of the issuance of delivery warrant was never challenged by the father of the petitioners and pursuant to the same, delivery is handed over to the purchaser of the property and filing of the application by the father of the petitioners seeking restrain against the purchaser is an abuse of process of law as the judgment and decree in O.S.No.107/1979 has attained finality and if the petitioners have any grievance, they have to establish the same in an independent suit. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26221 W.P. No.48458/2018 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 6. The pleading and material on record indicate that the respondent No.4-Syndicate Bank, Perdur Branch, Udupi, filed O.S.No.107/1979 against the father of the petitioners and others. The said suit came to be decreed. Thereafter, the Bank filed an execution case in Ex.P.No.40/1991 to execute the judgment and decree. The father of the petitioners and others were parties to the suit as well as to the execution proceedings. Those proceedings have been effectively defended by them. The records further indicate that Sri.Sooranna Shetty purchased the suit schedule property in an auction, sale certificate was issued in his favour by the Court in the aforesaid execution proceedings. The respondents in the execution proceedings i.e. the father of the petitioners and others have not challenged the judgment and decree in O.S.No.107/1979 as well as the sale certificate issued in favour of the purchaser. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26221 W.P. No.48458/2018 The auction purchaser filed a miscellaneous petition in Mis.P.No.59/1995 seeking for delivery of the immovable property purchased by him in the Court delivery. 7. In the aforesaid miscellaneous proceedings, the father of the petitioners filed an application seeking for temporary injunction restraining the purchaser from trespassing into the suit schedule property and also an objection in pursuance of the delivery warrant issued in the said proceedings by taking up a contention that he has 3/4th undivided interest in the property. The Trial Court rejected the application filed by the father of the petitioners and his objection to the delivery warrant, vide order dated 21.03.2000 which was never challenged either by the father of the petitioners who was the respondent No.2 in the proceedings or the petitioners herein. Subsequently, the Trial Court passed another order dated 19.06.2000 ordering for assistance of a Surveyor to demarcate the property. The said application was opposed by the father of the petitioners by taking similar contentions and the said application came to be allowed by rejecting the objections raised by the father of the petitioners. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26221 W.P. No.48458/2018 8. The records also indicate that after the original auction purchaser died, the proceedings were abated which was later restored and the present miscellaneous proceedings were continued. After restoring the proceedings, the legal heirs of the purchaser continued the proceedings and thereafter, a delivery warrant was issued and the respondent No.2-father of the petitioners filed I.A.No.9 to recall the delivery warrant dated 15.09.2017 claiming that he has an undivided share and interest in the property which came to be rejected by the Trial Court on 20.04.2017 by imposing cost of Rs.3,000/-. In pursuant to the delivery warrant, the Bailiff submitted a report to the Trial Court along with a receipt reporting that the delivery warrant is duly executed and the auction purchaser has given a receipt for having received the possession of the suit schedule property. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.2 filed an application seeking to grant temporary injunction which was rightly rejected by the Trial Court recording a finding that the delivery warrant is already executed and the possession had already been delivered to the auction purchaser. I am of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26221 W.P. No.48458/2018 the considered view that the Trial Court was fully justified in recording the aforesaid finding. 9. The contention of the petitioners that they ought to have been brought on record in the proceedings has no merit as the father of the petitioners had already made all his efforts to obstruct the enjoyment of the decree obtained by the auction purchaser. Hence, there is no merit in the contention. The Trial Court, under the impugned order while narrating the chronology of events as to how the father of the petitioners has failed in his attempt in the aforesaid proceedings has come to the conclusion that the proceedings are required to be closed in view of the delivery of the physical possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the auction purchaser. I do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned order calling for any interference in this writ petition. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26221 W.P. No.48458/2018 ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly rejected. 11. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0