The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20750 W.P. No.31671/2019 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.31671/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NINGAMMA W/O A. ANANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT. A.R. MILITARY HOTEL S.B.M. ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501. 2. SRI. A. VENKATESH S/O A. ANANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT. A.R. MILITARY HOTEL S.B.M. ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka …PETITIONERS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M. ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. B. YUVARAJ S/O S. BHEEMAPPA AGE MAJOR R/AT. SOPPINAKERE BURUGINATHATTY CHITRADURGA-577501. 2. VANI D/O A. NANDA REDDY AGE MAJOR. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20750 W.P. No.31671/2019 HC-KAR 3. VEENA D/O A. NANDA REDDY AGE MAJOR. 4. VANITHA D/O A. NANDA REDDY AGE MAJOR. 5. MEENAKSHI D/O A. NANDA REDDY AGE MAJOR. RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE R/AT A.R. MILITARY HOTEL S.B.M. ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA Y, ADV., FOR SRI. KASHINATH J.D. ADV., FOR R1 V/O/DTD:12.04.2021 NOTICE TO R2 TO R5 D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT, QUASHING ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA IN EXECUTION NO.26/2016 DT:27.4.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ALLOW THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE EXECUTION PETITION & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20750 W.P. No.31671/2019 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: a) Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, in the nature of the writ, quashing order passed by learned I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Chitradurga in Execution No.26 of 2016 dated 27.04.2019, vide ANNEXURE-H; and allow the objection filed by the petitioner in the above execution petition. b) Cost and such other reliefs deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Sri.Siddappa B.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the judgment debtors in Execution Proceeding No.26/2016 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 herein obtained judgment and decree in O.S.No.229/2013 against the petitioners for a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The decree of the trial Court is produced at Annexure-‘A’. The said decree indicates that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20750 W.P. No.31671/2019 HC-KAR petitioners are liable to pay the decretal amount only to the extent of the property inherited by them from the deceased Sri.A.Ananda Reddy which could be ascertained during the course of execution proceedings. However, the execution Court without conducting any enquiry has proceeded to issue an attachment of movables of the petitioners. It is submitted that the impugned order clearly indicates that the execution Court has not conducted any enquiry whatsoever to ascertain with regard to the inheritance of the property by late Sri.A.Ananda Reddy and without doing so, there cannot be any liability to pay the aforesaid amount. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order. 3. Per contra, Smt.Pushpalatha Y., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Kashinath J.D., learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order and submits that defendant No.1, who is petitioner No.1 in the petition has clearly admitted in her cross-examination that late Sri.A.Ananda Reddy was running the military hotel - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20750 W.P. No.31671/2019 HC-KAR and thereafter, his son has succeeded. The said admission further fructified on referring to the license at Annexure-‘F’. It is submitted that respondent No.1 has adduced evidence in the execution proceedings as PW.1 and got market Ex.P1-the certified copy of the deposition. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not led any evidence during the enquiry conducted by the Execution Court and the evidence adduced by the respondent No.1 is required to be taken as correct and the same has been appreciated by the Execution Court while passing the order which does not call for any interference. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The pleading and material available on record indicates that respondent No.1 has advanced a loan of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20750 W.P. No.31671/2019 HC-KAR Rs.1,00,000/- to Sri.A.Ananda Reddy based on the promissory note and the said Sri.A.Ananda Reddy died in the month of July 2012. The respondents filed suit in O.S.No.229/2013 which came to be decreed. The relevant portion of the decree is extracted herein below: "It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed with cost. Further it is ordered and decreed that, the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.1,32,000/- and further entitled to 12% the principal interest per annum on amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of suit till realization of the decreetal amount from the defendants. Further it is ordered and decreed that, the defendants are liable to pay the decreetal amount only to the extent of property from the inherited by them deceased A. Ananda Reddy which could be ascertained during the course of execution proceedings." 6. The aforesaid decree clearly indicates that respondent No.1/decree holder is entitled to recover Rs.1,32,000/- and further 12% interest per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of suit till - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20750 W.P. No.31671/2019 HC-KAR realization of the decretal amount from the petitioners herein. The said decree further indicates that the petitioners herein are liable to pay the decretal amount only to the extent of property inherited by them from the deceased Sri.A.Ananda Reddy which could be ascertained during the course of the execution proceedings. Bare reading of the impugned order under challenge in the present proceedings indicates that respondent No.1 has adduced the evidence, examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1-the certified copy of the deposition in the suit. Based on such material, the finding of the execution Court indicates that though the execution Court has conducted an enquiry as required in the decree. However, it has not recorded any clear finding with regard to the fact that the petitioners have inherited certain properties from the deceased Sri.A.Ananda Reddy and unless the said exercise is carried out by the execution Court, it would not be appropriate for the execution Court to issue attachment order of movables of the petitioners. The aforesaid - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20750 W.P. No.31671/2019 HC-KAR extracted decree clearly indicates that the execution Court is required to first ascertain the properties inherited by the petitioners from late Sri.A.Ananda Reddy and thereafter, fix a liability to pay the decretal amount to the extent of their inheritance of the properties from late Sri.A.Ananda Reddy. In the absence of such exercise by the execution Court, the execution Court has proceeded to believe a version of respondent No.1 and considered Ex.P1, which is in my considered view is contrary to the decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.229/2013. For the aforesaid reasons, writ petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) Impugned order dated 27.04.2019 in Execution No.26/2016 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Chitradurga is set aside. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:20750 W.P. No.31671/2019 HC-KAR iii) It is open for the execution Court to conduct enquiry as ordered in the decree dated 03.09.2015 and pass appropriate orders after providing an opportunity to the parties in accordance with law. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43