- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010607732026 NC: 2026:KHC:48270 WP No. 27517 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 27517 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. R. VIJAYALAKSHMI, WIFE OF LATE. B.R.RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 2. MS.B.R.SUPRIYA, DAUGHTER OF LATE.B.R. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 3. MRS. SHUBHA ROMESH PATEL, DAUGHTER OF LATE. B. R. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4. MS.B.R. KAVITHA, DAUGHTER OF LATE B.R.RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS DECREE-HOLDER 5. MR.B.R.KASTURI RANGAIAH, SON OF LATE B.R.RANGASAMY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 6. SRI.B.R.DILIP KUMAR, SON OF B.R.RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. B.R. DILIP KUMAR PETITIONER NO.6, SON OF LATE B.R. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 101, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010607732026 NC: 2026:KHC:48270 WP No. 27517 of 2026 KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HARI PRASAD M.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GIRIDHAR S V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE 560001 3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, UPPARPET POLICE STATION, MAJESTIC, BANGALORE 560 009 4. SRI.SHANKARLAL RAJ PUROHIT, MAJOR, SON OF LATE.BBORAJI, RESIDING AT NO.2, T.S.LANE, AKKIPET, BENGALURU-560 053 5. SMT.BHAGYA, MAJOR, WIFE OF SRI.JAMATHRAJ, RESIDING AT NO.5, 4TH FLOOR, AKKIPET MAIN ROAD, CHICKPET, BENGALURU-560 053 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; R4-R5 D/W) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, SIMILAR WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 TO ENSURE THAT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 PROVIDES THE NECESSARY POLICE PROTECTION TO THE - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010607732026 NC: 2026:KHC:48270 WP No. 27517 of 2026 PETITIONERS AND THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY FROM THE ILLEGAL ACTS OF INTERFERENCE OF THE PETITIONERS POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 3. 2. Notice to respondents No.4 and 5 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. 3. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, Similar Writ, Order, Order or Direction directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to ensure that the Respondent No.3 provides the necessary police protection to the Petitioners and the Schedule Property from the illegal acts of interference of the Petitioners' possession of the Schedule Property; and b. Pass an Order as to the costs of the present Writ Petition; and c. Pass such other Order/s as the circumstances may warrant in the interest of justice and equity. 4. The petitioner No.1-husband and father of the petitioner No.2 to 6 had filed a suit in OS No.1513 of 1985 against on Sri.A.R.Anantharaman, Sri.P.M.Ashwathnarayana - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010607732026 NC: 2026:KHC:48270 WP No. 27517 of 2026 Setty and Sri.G.Mohammed Ziaulla, which came to be decreed on 15.03.2002 directing specific performance of the agreement of sale entered into between the parties. 5. Subsequently, the petitioner claims that an absolute sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioners in the execution proceedings through a Court Officer. Thereafter respondents No.4 and 5 seeking to interfere with the possession of the petitioner relying on the aforesaid Judgment and decree dated 15.03.2002 in OS No.1513 of 1985 the petitioner sought for police protection. Even though a FIR has been registered, the police not having granted protection, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid relief. 6. Police protection is required to be granted by the police once an order of the Court has been passed. In the present case, firstly there is no such order. Secondly, the earlier suit which had been filed in OS No.1513 of 1985 was not against respondents No.4 and 5 but was against certain others. Neither in the judgment and decree nor in the execution proceedings police protection being ordered, the question of police protection now being granted could not arise. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010607732026 NC: 2026:KHC:48270 WP No. 27517 of 2026 7. More so when respondents No.4 and 5 allegedly claim that they have purchased the property subject matter of the suit in OS No.1513 of 1985. If at all the petitioner has any cause of action against them, it would be for the petitioner to agitate the same before the appropriate forum. 8. Reserving such liberty, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22