- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30638 WP No. 18584 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 18584 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. VINUTHA SOMASHEKAR W/O SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT KSRTC COLONY, HOSUR MAIN ROAD ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562106. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RUPESH R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUMARI SONA G S MINOR, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, D/O LATE G.S. SHIVAPRASAD, REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, RESPONDENT NO.2. 2. SMT. A.D. HEMA W/O LATE G.S. SHIVAPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS BOTH RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT GOPALANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHETTIKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572226 NOW R/AT RAGHAVENDRA COLONY TIPTUR TOWN, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572201. Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30638 WP No. 18584 of 2026 3. SRI G.S. SIDDARAMAIAH S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT GOPALANAHALLI VILLAGE SHETTIKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572226. 4. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O PANCHAKSHARIAH, D/O G.S. SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT VENKATESHWARA NAGARA, BEHIND RAGHAVENDRA SAWMILL KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577548. 5. SMT. SUVARNAMMA W/O G.S. SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT GOPALANAHALLI VILLAGE SHETTIKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR-572226. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.06.2026 PASSED BY LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI ON IA NO.6 IN FDP NO.1/2025 (ANNEXURE-F), AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.6 AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30638 WP No. 18584 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2026 passed in IA No.6 of FDP No.1/2025, whereby the Court has dismissed an application filed by the applicant-defendant No.3 under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Order 20 Rule 18 of CPC. 2. The petitioner's case is that the Executing Court may assign the shares of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 to the petitioner herein who is defendant No.3, with respect to Item Nos.1 to 5 of the suit schedule properties, and to put defendant No.3 in separate possession and enjoyment of Item Nos.1 to 5 of the suit schedule properties. That came to be dismissed by the Court, which observed that the judgment and decree passed in RA No.10005/2024. It is stated that the sale deed dated 28.05.2020 executed by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of 4 acres 5 guntas in Item No.1 is not binding on the plaintiff's share. When the Appellate Court has specifically ordered the shares of the plaintiffs and defendants, the Executing Court cannot interfere with the order passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur. Hence, the application filed by defendant No.3 is not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30638 WP No. 18584 of 2026 maintainable under law. The Court has already observed that if defendant No.3 is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, they have to prefer an appeal in the proper forum. It is not judicial discipline to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Court. The shares of the parties are allotted as per the judgment and decree passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, in RA No.10005/2024. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is not set aside, the Court has allotted the share to the plaintiff, and the share of the vendors of the defendant is also entitled to the said share. Thus, those rights can be assigned to the petitioner-defendant No.3, and this aspect was not considered by the Court, and dismissed the application. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has perused the material on record. The petitioner is defendant No.3. He was a party to the suit as well as to the appeal. The Appellate Court has passed a judgment and decree, specifically mentioning the shares of the plaintiff and the other - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30638 WP No. 18584 of 2026 defendants. As far as defendant No.3, who is the purchaser from the joint family members, and his share or entitlement are concerned, there is no mention in the judgment and decree passed in RA. The trial Court has rightly observed that it cannot go beyond the decree and the remedy available to the party is to question the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court. In the considered opinion of the Court, the judgment and the order passed by the Court are well considered. No interference is called for. 5. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE