- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2372 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. N. CHAITHANYA W/O LATE M. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. SMT. H. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE M. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 3. N. BADARINARAYANA S/O LATE M. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT HALLIPIRA MAIN ROAD, MUTTAGADAHALLI VILLAGE, THONDEBAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 213 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARASIMHAIAH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BELIMUTTA SWAMIGALU SRI SRI PRA CHARMURTHY SHIVARUDA SWAMIGALU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, BELIMUTTA ROAD COTTONPET, BENGALURU – 560 053 2. B.N. JAGANNATHA, ADOPTED SON OF LATE ASHWATHANARAYANA AND LATE MALLAMMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT. NO.64/1, SITARAMAIAH ROAD GHAVIPURA EXTENSION, BENGALURU – 560 019. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON IA NO.2 DATED 29.08.2025 ON THE FILE OF CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-8) IN THE EXECUTION CASE NO.265/2018 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “ i. Issue a writ of certiorari in quashing impugned order passed on I.A.No.2 DATED: 29.08.2025 on the file of City Civil Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-8) in the Execution Case No.265/2018 vide, Annexure – ‘A’. ii. Issue a writ of certiorari in quashing impugned order passed on I.A.No.13 dated: 16.09.2025 on the file of City Civil Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-8) in the Execution Case No.265/2018 vide, Annexure-‘G’. iii. Issue any other writ or pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in pursuance of judgment and decree dated 18.11.2011 passed by this Court in RFA No.552/2003 dated 18.11.2011, the suit of the appellant – plaintiff for specific performance was decreed in their favour against the petitioners – defendants, who were the respondents in the said appeal. The said judgment and decree passed by the Division Bench of this Court in RFA No.552/2003 was confirmed by this Court, which dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioners in R.P.No.807/2012 dated 27.10.2017. So also, the appeal in Civil Appeal Nos.1982-1983/2022 was dismissed by the Apex Court. Under these circumstances, when the Executing court wanted to proceed further in the pending execution in Ex.No.265/2018 filed by the 1st respondent – Decree holder, the petitioners filed the instant applications I.A.Nos.2 and 3 under Section 47 r/w Sections 98, 99 and 99-A CPC seeking dismissal of the execution proceedings. The said applications having been opposed by the 1st respondent – Decree holder, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 dismissing both I.A.Nos. 2 and 3 filed by the petitioners. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 4. Subsequently, the petitioners filed one more application I.A.No.13 under Section 14(A) of Specific Relief Act, seeking dismissal of the execution proceedings. The said application was also opposed by the 1st respondent – Decree Holder and culminating in the impugned order dated 16.09.2025, whereby the Executing court dismissed the said I.A.No.13 filed by the petitioners. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, dated 29.08.2025, passed on I.A.No.2 and 16.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.13, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. 6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the Division Bench of this Court has upheld the claim of the 1st respondent – Decree Holder and rejected the claim of the petitioners by holding as under:- “ The appellant is the plaintiff. The respondent is the defendant in the suit filed for specific performance. The defendant entered into 396616e plaintiff sell a portion of the property hearing 05/1 Belimut Road, Cottonpet, Banglore measuring 20 to west and 57 feat North to south. The Roy to be sold for ba34/212/. On the date of 9.1.10,000/ was paid as advance On sum of Ra 25.000/ on 07.04.1991 of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 Re.10.000/ and on 20.06.19912 of Re:30,000/- was paid totaling a sum of Rs. 2.45,000/-on paid. Six months time was stipulated for completing the terms of the agreement. 2. The defendant undertook that he would get power of attorney from his major too sons and on behalf of minor sons, he would execute the sale deed since the sale was necessitated because of the family necessities to clear the family debts. The plaintiff insisted for registration and execution of the sale deed. The defendant told the plaintiff that his sons are not agreeable for sale of the property as per the dimensions in the agreement and they are agreeable to sell 24 feet East to West and 57 feet North to South because of the fact if 28 feet East to West is to be sold, they have demolish the stating wall which would cause Inconvenience and difficulties which was not foreseen when the agreement was entered into, 3 The plaintiff gave legal notice calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement The defendant replied to the notice reiterating s stand that he is willing to sell 24 feet x 57 feet. Further it is alleged that there is breach of performance of contract on the part of the plaintiff demanded to pay interest on balance of consideration payable for executing the sale deed. 4. The plaintiff has filed the suit. In the written statement, the defendant does not deny the execution of the agreement. The defendant reiterated the stand taken in reply to the legal notice. In the evidence also the defendant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 is examined as DWI wherein he reiterates his stand that he is agreeable to sell only 24 feet x 57 feet arid not 28 feet x 57 feet. The defendant states that the plaintiff has committed breach and has not paid balance of sale consideration. Therefore, Insisted the plaintiff to pay interest on the balance of sale consideration at the rate of 10% p.a. 5. The trial court has found that the plaintiff has violated the terms and conditions of the sale agreement Therefore, dismissed the suit directing refund of the sale consideration received by the defendant with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of realization. The plaintiff aggrieved by the said judgment and decree has filed this appeal. 6. The defendant/respondent has filed cross objection against directing to pay interest on the advance amount received. The defendant/respondent died during the pendency of the appeal. The LRs were brought on record in the appeal. In the cross objection, the LRs did not come on record and prosecute the cross objection. Therefore, the cross objection was closed as abated. In this appeal, the LRS are served and are unrepresented. 7. The LR No.3 is represented by counsel. It is submitted that LR No.3 has been given in adoption by defendant to his relatives long back when LR No.3 was a minor Therefore, it is submitted that LR No.3 cannot be constructed as L.R of the deceased/respondent because of his adoption to other family. In this appeal. The others LRs have remained absent. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 8. On through consideration of facts evidence, It appears the trial court has failed to understand the crux of the matter and the defense put up by the plaintiff The view taken by the trial court that the plaintiff has committed breach of terms and conditions of the agreement is untenable. It is evident and admitted that the agreement was for sale of portion of the property measuring 28 feet x 57 feet. Subsequent to the execution of the agreement the defendant has expressed that IC 16 possible for him to execute the ante deed for dimension of 28 feet x 57 feet since on the east to west side, there exists will and if said dimension is sold, the wall of that building had to be demolished and it would create practical difficulties, Therefore, offered to sell 24 feet cast to west instead of 28 feet East to West. The defendant admits the agreement and receipt of sale consideration. The counter proposal put by the plaintiff cannot be called as breach of terms and conditions of the agreement. The defendant also in his evidence admits that subsequent to the agreement, there has been partition in the family and to his share the property in question has fallen to his share measuring 24 feet x 57 feet. It is also stated by the defendant in his evidence that two of his major sons and other minor sons had agreed to sell the property. Of course, they are agreeable to sell the property measuring 24 x 57 feet. The said version of the defendant may be not in accordance with the terms of the agreement. but nonetheless on equitable consideration the defendant has agreed to sell lesser dimension on the east to west side. In the context of the said facts, the plaintiff - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 cannot be said that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The court exercising equitable discretion should have granted decree to the plaintiff for the sale of 24 x 57 feet as offered by the defendant with proportionate reduction in the sale price. 9. Sri M. Shivappa, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant/plaintiff is agreeable to purchase the property measuring 24x57 feet as offered by the defendant without any proportionate reduction in the sale price and he is also agreeable to pay interest on the balance of sale consideration as per the terms of the sale agreement. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The LRs of the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour measuring 24 feet East to West x57 feet North to South. The balance of sale consideration should be paid with interest at 10% p.a by the plaintiff to the LRs of the defendant. In the event of LRs. Failing to execute sale deed, the appellant can get the sale deed through the process of the court.” 7. It is an undisputed fact that the review petition in R.P.No.807/2012 dated 27.10.2017, which was dismissed by this Court and both the orders were confirmed in Civil Appeal Nos.1982-1983/2022 which were dismissed by the Apex Court. It is therefore clear that the said orders passed by this Court and Apex Court having attained finality and become conclusive and binding - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 upon the petitioners, the petitioners were not entitled to request the Executing court to go beyond / behind the said orders / decree under the guise of the instant applications. In the impugned order, the trial court has taken note of all the previous proceedings and has come to the correct conclusion that the applications filed by the petitioners – JDRs did not contain valid or sufficient grounds and the sole intention of the petitioners – JDRs was to protract the proceedings and has rejected the applications by holding as hereunder:- “ORDERS ON I.A. No.2 & 3 “The judgment-debtors, the legal representatives of M.Narayanaswamy, have filed these two applications under Section 47 read with Sections 98, 99 and 99A of CPC, seeking dismissal of the execution petition, alleging the decree is void *ab initio* due to the doctrine of *lis pendens*, non-joinder of necessary parties, fraud and failure of the decree-holder to prove readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. 2. The decree-holder seeks execution of the decree passed in O.S.No.4281/1993, upheld in RFA No.552/2003 on 18.11.2011 by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1982-1983/2022 on 27.07.2022. The decree directs the execution of sale deed for a portion of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 property bearing No.5/1 (old No.62/A), Belimutt Road, Cottonpet, Bangalore-53, measuring 24 x 57 feet, based on agreement of sale dated 30.08.1990 with M.Narayanaswamy, now deceased. 3. In the affidavit annexed to I.A.No.2, the judgment-debtor No.1(a) [on behalf of judgment-debtor No.1(b) and 1(e)] has contended that, the suit property is part of a joint Hindu family, subject to pending partition suit in O.S.No.8024/1980 filed by Smt.Malamma, claiming 1/6th share and declaring prior partition decrees in O.S.No.38/1956 and O.S.No.71/1958 nonbinding. The agreement of sale by M.Narayanaswamy (Defendant No.11 in O.S.No.8024/1980) on 30.08.1990 lacked consent from all coparceners, violating *lis pendens* as the suit was pending, rendering the agreement a “sham document” and the decree a nullity. 3(a). The judgment-debtors No.1(a), 1(b) and 1(e) were not parties to the agreement or O.S.No.4281/1993, making the decree erroneous. The decree-holder suppressed material facts regarding the pendency of O.S.No.8024/1980 and the decree was obtained fraudulently, rendering it a nullity. O.S.No.8024/1980 remanded in RFA No.266/2002 and O.S.No.3941/2019 challenging the compromise in O.S.No.6976/2002 and related transactions render the execution petition non-maintainable. 3(b). The decree-holder failed to pay the balance consideration of `2,05,000/- within the stipulated period, depositing it only on 21.08.2024, after 33 years, failing to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 prove continuous readiness and willingness. On these grounds, prays to allow the I.A. No.2. 4. In the affidavit annexed to I.A.No.3, judgment- debtor No.1(c) has contended that, he claims to be the adopted son of Smt.Malamma as per Adoption Deed dated 04.06.1983, registered 31.12.1998 - Annexure-E; confirmed by I.A.No.10 dated 22.09.2014 in O.S.No.8024/1980, Annexure-F, entitled to her 1/6th share in the joint family property. He asserts no rights in M.Narayanaswamy’s family due to adoption. 4(a). The agreement violates *lis pendens* due to O.S.No.8024/1980 and lacks coparcener consent, making it voidable. The non-joinder of judgment-debtors in O.S.No.4281/1993 invalidates the decree. The decree is nullity due to suppression of the pending suit and failure to include necessary parties. The decree-holder's delayed deposit on 21.08.2024 negates readiness and willingness, rendering specific performance unenforceable under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC. On these grounds, prays to allow I.A.No.3. 5. The decree-holder has filed common objections to I.A. No.2 and 3 contending that: • The decree has attained finality and the Executing Court cannot go behind it under Section 47 of CPC. • M.Narayanaswamy himself admitted in appellate proceedings that a post-agreement partition allotted the suit schedule portion to him. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 • The judgment-debtors’ own conduct in alienating parts of the same property to B.Palanethra in 2003 and 2013 without disclosing pending suits belies their plea of lis pendens. • B.N.Jagannatha’s inconsistent claim as both Smt.Lakshmamma’s son and Smt.Malamma’s adopted son casts doubt on his locus standi. • The decree-holder contends that allegations of fraud are vague and unsupported. • The plea of lack of readiness and willingness already stood adjudicated in RFA No.552/2003, and affirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On these grounds, prays for dismissal of I.As. 6. The chief-examination of N.Chaithanya [judgment- debtor No.1(b)] confirms the family’s progenitor - Sanjeevaiah, had three sons, with S.Muniyappa’s share partitioned on 27.03.1967, allotting 139 x 57 ft. to M.Narayanaswamy (Annexure-A4). In the evidence, N.Chaithanya further admits selling 78 x 57 ft. to B.Palanethra on 18.07.2003 - Annexure-A6, without disclosing O.S.No.8024/1980, disputes the validity of Lakshmamma’s Gift on 08.05.2009 - Annexure-A8 and Jagannatha’s Sale on 06.07.2013, Annexure-A9 to Palanethra, who possesses the property and has constructed buildings. The evidence of N.Chaithanya confirms O.S.No.3941/2019 challenges the compromise in O.S.No.6976/2002 and seeks cancellation of the Sale/ Gift Deeds. The dismissal of I.A. No.2 in O.S.No.4281/1993 on 01.08.2002, allowed a separate suit, but no evidence of such suit exists. The dismissal of SLP Nos.21299-21300/2018 dated 11.03.2022 (not Civil Appeal Nos.1982-1983/2022 as claimed) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholds RFA No.552/2003. The evidence of N.Chaithanya insists the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 property is ancestral, not M.Narayanaswamy’s self-acquired property and denies the sale consideration was used for family benefit. 7. The decree-holder has not adduced any evidence. 8. In the written arguments, judgment-debtor No.1(b) [onbehalf of judgment-debtor No.11(a) and 1(e)] argued that agreement violates Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, as it was executed during O.S.No.8024/1980, binding the decree holder to the outcome of that suit. The judgment-debtors were not parties to the agreement or O.S.No.4281/1993 and M.Narayanaswamy, not being the karta, lacked authority to alienate joint family property. The decree-holder's failure to pay the balance within the stipulated period on 28.02.1991 and delayed deposit on 21.08.2024, ` 2,05,000/- after 33 years, with the property’s market value now at ` 5 crore, negates specific performance. The decree is nullity due to suppression of O.S.No.8024/1980 and non-joinder, supported by pending suits (O.S.No.3941/2019, I.A.No.67 in O.S.No.8024/1980) challenging the decree-holder's rights. 9. The decree-holder has argued that, I.A. No.2 and 3 are not maintainable under Section 47 of CPC, as the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, which is final per the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s dismissal of Civil Appeal Nos.1982- 1983/2022. M. Narayanaswamy’s evidence in RFA No.552/2003 confirmed a post-agreement partition, allotting him the suit property (24 x 57 ft.), supported by the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 27.03.1967 partition deed (Annexure-A4). The judgment- debtors' sale to B.Palanethra on 18.07.2003, Annexure-A6 and subsequent Gift/ Sale (Annexures-A8, A9) indicate acquiescence, negating *lis pendens*. B.Palanethra, the decree-holder's brother, purchased portions of the property (78 x 57 ft. and 28 x 57 ft.) without knowledge of O.S.No.8024/1980, as the judgment-debtors failed to disclose the litigation, making him a bonafide purchaser. Jagannatha’s claim as Smt.Malamma’s adopted son contradicts his status as Smt.Lakshmamma’s son, undermining his locus standi to invoke *lis pendens* or claim Smt.Malamma’s share. 9(a). The Hon’ble High Court in RFA No.552/2003 found the decree-holder's partial payments of 2,45,000/- and M.Narayanaswamy’s admission of willingness to sell sufficient, upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The judgment-debtors' cited cases are inapplicable due to differing facts and the decree is enforceable by operation of law as held in Angadi Chandranna vs. Shankar* CIVIL APPEAL No.5401 of 2025 dated 22.04.2025. 10. Now, the points that would arise for my consideration are :- 1. Whether I.A. No.2 and 3 are maintainable under Section 47 of CPC? 2. Whether the decree in O.S.No.4281/1993 is void "ab initio" due to "lis pendens", non-joinder of necessary parties or fraud? 3. Whether the decree-holder fail to prove readiness and willingness, rendering the decree unenforceable? - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 4. Whether the pendency of O.S.No.8024/1980 and O.S.No.3941/2019 bar the present execution petition? 5. What order? 11. My findings on the above points are as under:- Point No.1: In the negative. Point No.2: In the negative. Point No.3: In the negative. Point No.4: In the negative. Point No.5: As per final order below for the following; R E A S O N S 12. Point No.1: - Section 47 of CPC restricts the Executing Court to questions concerning the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, not its validity. Challenges alleging nullity due to lack of jurisdiction or fraud may be considered. The judgment-debtors' objections primarily attack the decree’s validity "lis pendens", non- joinder, fraud, which exceeds the scope of Section 47 unless nullity is established. Hence, above Point No.1 is answered in the negative. 13. Point No.2:- O.S.No.8024/1980 filed by Smt.Malamma, was pending during the agreement dated 30.08.1990. Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, prohibits alienations affecting the rights of parties to the pending suit without court permission. However, Judgment and Order passed in RFA No.552/2003 (Annexure-A1) confirmed a post-agreement partition, allotting him the suit property, corroborated by the 27.03.1967 partition deed (Annexure- - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 A5). The judgment-debtors’ sale of 78 x 57 ft. to B.Palanethra on 18.07.2003, Annexure-A6 without disclosing O.S.No.8024/1980 suggests acquiescence, weakening "lis pendens". The dismissal of Civil Appeal Nos.1982-1983/2022 (Annexure-A3) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholds the Hon’ble High Court’s finding that the property was alienable. 14. The judgment-debtors except B.N.Jagannatha, excluded due to adoption were not parties to O.S.No.4281/1993 but were impleaded in RFA No.552/2003 as M.Narayanaswamy’s legal representatives. Their failure to file a separate suit, as permitted by dismissal of I.A.No.2, undermines their non-joinder claim. The absence of necessary party may render the decree ineffective, but the judgment-debtors' participation in appeals and subsequent sales to Palanethra estops them from raising this objection. 15. The allegations of fraud require specific evidence of misrepresentation or suppression. The judgment-debtors’ claim that the decree-holder suppressed O.S.No.8024/1980 is unsubstantiated, as M.Narayanaswamy’s admission of partition and willingness to sell was judicially noted. The judgment-debtors’ own non- disclosure to Palanethra further weakens their claim. Hence, above Point No.2 is answered in the negative. 16. Point No.3:- Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, mandates continuous readiness and willingness for specific performance. The trial court in O.S.No.4281/1993 found the decree-holder breached the agreement by not - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 paying the balance by 28.02.1991, ordering refund with interest. The Hon’ble High Court in RFA No.552/2003 reversed this, noting partial payments and M.Narayanaswamy’s admission, upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The delayed deposit of ` 2,05,000/- on 21.08.2024 in the execution court does not negate the Hon’ble High Court’s finding, as readiness was established through prior payments and legal notices. The property’s current market value of ` 5 crore is irrelevant, as specific performance is based on the agreement’s terms. Hence, above Point No.3 is answered in the negative. 17. Point No.4: - The pendency of O.S.No.8024/1980 and O.S.No.3941/2019 does not automatically bar execution unless they directly affect the suit property’s title. The judgment-debtors’ transactions with Palanethra Annexures-A6, A8, A9 and M.Narayanaswamy’s admitted partition indicate the property was treated as alienable. B.N.Jagannatha’s claim through Smt.Malamma’s share is unproven, as O.S.No.8024/1980 remains undecided and his adoption does not confer immediate rights over M.Narayanaswamy’s share. Hence, above Point No.4 is answered in the negative. 18. Point No.5:- The judgment-debtors have relied on the following decisions:- "K.C. Laxmana vs. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda" (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381): Alienation of joint family property without coparcener consent is voidable. Here, the post-agreement - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 partition and judgment-debtors’ sales negate this applicability. "K.N. Aswathnarayana Setty vs. State of Karnataka" (2014) 15 SCC 394): A transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree. The judgment-debtors' acquiescence through sales undermines their "lis pendens" claim. "Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi" (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 802): Non-joinder of necessary parties may invalidate a decree, but the judgment- debtors’ participation in appeals cures this defect. "C.K. Ravi Kumar vs. John Franklin" (FAO No. 89/2024, Kerala HC): Obligations under the contract cannot be assigned without consent. Here, M.Narayanaswamy’s authority postpartition was judicially recognized. "Alagammal vs. Ganesan" (2024) 3 SCC 232): Failure to pay within the stipulated time may bar specific performance. The Hon’ble High Court’s finding of readiness overrides this, given partial payments. "U.N. Krishnamurthy vs. A.M. Krishnamurthy" (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588): Continuous readiness is mandatory, but the decree-holder's actions were sufficient as per RFA No.552/2003. "Kolli Satyanarayana vs. Valuripalli Kesava Rao Chowdary" (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 807): Courts must consider time limits in agreements. The High Court’s equitable discretion in granting specific performance is upheld. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 19. The decree-holder has relied on the following decisions:- "Angadi Chandranna vs. Shankar" CIVIL APPEAL No.5401 of 2025 Dated 22.04.2025: Post-partition, a coparcener’s share becomes self-acquired, supporting M.Narayanaswamy’s authority to sell. 20. In the conclusion, this court is of the opinion that I.A.No.2 and 3 are not maintainable under Section 47 of CPC, as they challenge the decree’s validity, which is beyond the Executing Court’s jurisdiction, given its finality as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order passed in Civil Appeal No.1982-1983/2022. The "lis pendens" claim fails due to M.Narayanaswamy’s admitted partition and judgment- debtors' sales to B.Palanethra, indicating acquiescence. Non-joinder is cured by the judgment-debtors' participation in appeals and fraud allegations lack specific evidence. The decree-holder's readiness was established in RFA No.552/2003 and the pendency of O.S.No.8024/1980 and O.S.No.3941/2019 does not bar execution, as they do not directly affect the decreed property’s title. Allowing these applications would cause undue hardship to the decree- holder, while dismissing them causes no prejudice to the judgment-debtors, who received consideration for prior sales. Hence, this court proceed to pass the following:- ORDER I.A.No.2 and 3 filed by the judgmentdebtors under Section 47 read with Sections 98, 99 and 99A of CPC are hereby dismissed. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 Execution Petition No.265/2018 shall proceed as per law. No order as to costs.” 8. It is a matter of record that despite dismissal of I.A.Nos.2 and 3 filed by them by the Executing court, the petitioners filed one more application I.A.No.13 which was also rightly dismissed by the Executing court; in fact, the trial court records reveal that apart from the aforesaid applications I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 13, the petitioners have been repeatedly filing one application after another with a malafide intention and ulterior motive of protracting / scuttling the execution proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court which have been confirmed by the Apex Court and had attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the petitioners. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was fully justified in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners by correctly and properly considering and appreciating the rival contentions and the material on record by passing the impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5142 WP No. 2372 of 2026 9. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63