The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12582 CRP No. 664 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 664 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT. KUMARI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O THYAGARAJAN SREERAMANAGAR OORGAUMPET, KGF - 563115 (BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. D VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O DEVASIGAMANI BEHIND SUIT PROPERTY SREERAMANAGAR OORGAUMPET, KGF - 563 115. 2. D JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O DEVASIGAMANI BEHIND SUIT PROPERTY SREERAMANAGAR OORGAUMPET, KGF - 563 115 (BY SRI.D.VENUGOPAL, R1 – PARTY-IN-PERSON SRI. G.S.SREEDHARA., ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12582 CRP No. 664 of 2024 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2024 PASSED IN EX.NO.31/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.G.F, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is arrayed as a judgment debtor at the hands of the 1st respondent herein in Execution Petition No.31/2023 on the file of the leaned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., K.G.F., is before this Court aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-A, dated 21.08.2024, wherein the learned Judge has allowed the execution petition and passed an order restraining the petitioner herein from causing obstructions to the decree holder to remove the stone slabs standing in the adjacent property of the petition schedule property. 2. It is not disputed that the petitioner herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.367/2019 on the file of the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., K.G.F., wherein the 1st - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12582 CRP No. 664 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
respondent is defendant No.2 and respondents’ brother Sri.Jayaram is defendant No.1. The petitioner herein had filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction to direct the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s suit schedule property; to direct the defendants not to remove the stones from the suit schedule property which is also covered with the building. A compromise petition was filed by the parties, wherein the parties agreed as follows: “4. That the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.2 have hereby agree and declare that the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property measuring East to West 36 feet and North to South 23 feet with build up area of 16’ X 10 squares. Plaintiff agreed that she will pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- towards value of the stone slabs standing on the suit schedule property and the Defendant No.2 agreed for the same and he will receive the above said amount and the plaintiff agreed that she will not claim adjacent property other than the suit schedule property mentioned above. Further, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12582 CRP No. 664 of 2024 Defendant No.2 will not press for the Counter Claim filed by him under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC. 5. That the parties hereto have agree and declare that they have no further claim against each other except the terms agreed in this compromise petition and the Defendant No.1 have to objections for the above said terms and conditions.” 3. Accordingly, the decree was drawn in terms of the compromise petition by the learned Civil Judge. It is also not disputed that the petitioner herein being the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.22,000/- towards the stone slabs in favour of the 1st respondent/defendant No.2 and the 1st respondent, party-in-person admitted having received the said sum of Rs.22,000/- from the petitioner/plaintiff. However, thereafter, the 1st respondent filed an execution petition contending that the petitioner herein created problem in not allowing the decree holder to remove the stone slabs standing in the adjacent property belonging to the decree holder. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12582 CRP No. 664 of 2024 4. The petitioner herein appeared before the executing court, filed statement of objections and contended that the execution petition filed by the decree holder is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the
Legal Reasoning
same is liable to be dismissed. It was contended that the decree holder has no right to file the execution petition and the decree holder has no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and the decree holder is a stranger to the suit schedule property. It was contended that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property and that she had purchased the property from the 1st respondent herein under a registered sale deed dated 11.02.2002. It was contended that in terms of the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.367/2019, the original plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.22,000/- for the stone slabs to the decree holder. It was therefore contended that if the execution petition is allowed, at any moment the decree holder may remove the stone wall attached to the petition schedule property and it would further lead to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12582 CRP No. 664 of 2024 multiplicity of proceedings and the original plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Nevertheless, the executing court has passed the impugned order allowing the execution petition while passing an order restraining the petitioner herein from causing obstructions to the decree holder to remove the stone slabs standing in the adjacent property of the petition schedule property. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the arguments put forth before the executing court and submits that in the compromise petition or in the decree drawn by the trial court, no where it is stated that the plaintiff had agreed to permit defendant No.2 to remove the stone slabs, even after the plaintiff paying a sum of Rs.22,000/- to defendant No.2 in terms of the decree. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that the decree passed by the trial court and the relief sought for by the decree holder is not an executable one. 6. The 1st respondent, party-in-person has read out the contents of the compromise petition and strenuously - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12582 CRP No. 664 of 2024 argued that the terms of the compromise petition are very clear that the plaintiff has agreed that she will not claim any rights over the adjacent property other than the suit schedule property mentioned in the suit. It is therefore contended by the 1st respondent, party-in-person that the plaintiff cannot cause any interference if defendant No.2 seeks to remove the stone slabs from his property, since the plaintiff has admitted that she is the absolute owner of property measuring 36 x 23 feet only. 7. Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider similar such situation where an execution petition was filed by one of the parties to compromise decree, seeking to execute one of the terms of the decree. This Court noticed that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat Vs. Rajinder Singh and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 566, had an occasion to dealt with a similar situation where the suit was decreed in terms of a compromise agreement where the defendants undertook to vacate the suit premises on a particular date and with certain other - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12582 CRP No. 664 of 2024 conditions. However, since the defendant did not vacate the premises on the date agreed upon, an execution petition was filed by the plaintiff. The Apex Court held having regard to Order 43 of CPC, that Order 43 Rule 1(m) had earlier provided for an appeal against the order under Rule 3 Order 23 recording or refusing to record an agreement, compromise or satisfaction. But, clause (m) of Rule 1 of Order 43 was omitted by Act No.104 of 1976, w.e.f., 01.02.1977. Simultaneously, a proviso was added to Rule 3 Order 23 which provides that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment of satisfaction has been arrived at, the court shall decide the question. It was further noticed that Rule 3A was also added in Order 23 w.e.f., 01.02.1977 barring any suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. Further, it would be relevant to notice that the ruling of the Apex Court considering the provisions contended in Order 23. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12582 CRP No. 664 of 2024 8. It was further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the said Rule consists of two parts. The first part provides that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties, the court shall order such agreement or compromise to be recorded and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith. The second part provides that where a defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject matter of the suit, the court shall order such satisfaction to be recorded and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith. It was held that the first part refers to situations where an agreement or compromise is entered into in writing and signed by the parties. The said agreement or compromise is placed before the court. When the court is satisfied that the suit has been adjusted either wholly or in part by such agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties and that it is lawful, a decree follows in terms of what is agreed between the parties. The - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12582 CRP No. 664 of 2024 agreement/compromise spells out the agreed terms by which the claim is admitted or adjusted by mutual concessions or promises, so that the parties thereto can be held to their promise/s in future and performance can be enforced by the execution of the decree to be passed in terms of it. On the other hand, the second part refers to cases where the defendant has satisfied the plaintiff about the claim. This may be by satisfying the plaintiff that his claim cannot be or need not be met or performed. It can also be by discharging or performing the required obligation. Where the defendant so 'satisfies' the plaintiff in respect of the subject-matter of the suit, nothing further remains to be done or enforced and there is no question of any 'enforcement' or 'execution' of the decree to be passed in terms of it. 9. Having regard to the exposition of the law at the hands of the Apex Court, and having regard to the compromise decree drawn in O.S.No.367/2019, no where did the plaintiff agree to permit defendant No.2 or - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12582 CRP No. 664 of 2024 defendant No.1 to remove the stone slabs. On the other hand, what was agreed was that the plaintiff shall pay Rs.22,000/- towards the value of the stone slabs standing on the suit schedule property and defendant No.2 agreed for the same and he has received the said amount at the hands of the plaintiff. In the execution case, what is alleged by the defendant No.2 is that when he proceeded to remove the stone slabs, the plaintiff is causing obstructions. Therefore, the plaintiff is right in objecting to the execution case. There is no executable decree that has been passed in O.S.No.367/2019. On the other hand, if defendant No.2 seeks to remove the stone slabs for which value has been already been paid by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has every right to object to such an action which would be contrary to the agreed terms and decree passed in O.S.No.367/2019. However, if defendant No.1 still seeks to remove the stone slabs on the ground that the stone slabs are situated in his property, it would be a new cause of action, and defendant No.2 will have to file a fresh suit if so advised. At any rate, there is no - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12582 CRP No. 664 of 2024 executable decree passed in O.S.No.367/2019, insofar as the claim now sought to be made by defendant No.2. 10. In that view of the matter, the execution case should have been dismissed at the hands of the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., K.G.F., while upholding the objections filed by the judgment debtor. 11. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed in Execution Petition No.31/2023, is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the Execution Petition stands dismissed as not maintainable. Ordered accordingly.
Decision
12. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL