1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.495/2019

BETWEEN

1.

LAKSHMAMMA

W/O. LATE NARASEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

2.

GOWRAMMA

D/O. LATE NARASEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

3.

UMAVATHI

D/O. LATE NARASEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

4.

MAHADEVA

S/O. LATE NARASEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

ALL RESIDENTS AT SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,

BANGALORE - 560082.

... PETITIONERS

[BY SRI. MANIAN K.B.S., ADVOCATE FOR P3;

SRI. MOHANA C., ADVOCATE FOR P1, 2 & 4)

AND

1.

SARASWATHI

D/O. LATE NARASEGOWDA

2

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

RESIDENT AT SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,

BANGALORE - 560 082.

2.

S.C.NARASAMMA

W/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY

AGED ABOUT YEARS

RESIDENT OF SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

BANGALORE - 560082.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.Y.D.SHIVASHANKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED

20.09.2019 PASSED IN EX.PETITION NO.31/2013 ON THE

FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL

DISTRICT, BANGALORE ALLOWING THE APPLICATION

FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 90 R/W SECTION 151 OF

CPC FOR SETTING ASIDE THE RE-CONVEYANCE DEED

EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AND THE 1^ST

RESPONDENT, HEREIN.

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR

ADMISSION

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

MADE

THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the decree

holder

Nos.1,

3

to

5

in

Execution

Petition

No.31/2013 pending consideration before the II

Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,

3

Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Executing

Court') challenging the order dated 20.09.2019.

2.

The Executing Court allowed an application filed by

one of the decree holder under Order XXI Rule 90

read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (henceforth referred to as 'of CPC') and set

aside the re-conveyance deed dated 10.10.2017.

3.

The facts of the case as are evident from the records

are that a suit in O.S.No.2/1990 was filed for a

decree to direct the defendants to execute a re-

conveyance of the suit schedule property in favour of

the decree holders. The said suit after contest was

decreed in terms of the judgment and decree dated

25.09.1997. The defendant No.1 in the said suit

filed R.A.No.165/1997 which was dismissed on

11.01.2005, following which, a Regular Second

Appeal

was

filed

before

this

Court

in

R.S.A.No.665/2005 which was also dismissed on

22.08.2013

and

an

S.L.P.(c)

No.6599/2015

4

preferred there from before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court was also rejected on 10.02.2017. The

proceedings thus ended between the parties.

4.

The decree holder No.2 filed Execution Petition

No.10/2012 on 02.04.2012 which is stated to be

pending till date. In the meanwhile, another

Execution Petition was filed in Execution Petition

No.31/2013 by the decree holder Nos.1, 3 to 5. The

Executing Court noticed the claim of the decree

holders and issued a notice to the judgment debtor

to comply with the decree passed in O.S.No.2/1990.

On the failure of the judgment debtor, the Executing

Court appointed Sri. S.N.Kumarswamy as a Court

Commissioner. The draft of the document was

approved by the Executing Court and thereafter, the

Commissioner

admitted

the

execution

of

the

document before the Sub Registrar, Jayanagar (BTM

Layout), Bengaluru and the re-conveyance deed was

executed on behalf of the judgment debtor in favour

5

of the GPA holder. It is stated that the decree holder

thereafter, transferred the property in favour of Smt.

Jayalakshmi in terms of a deed of absolute sale

dated 09.11.2017. Thereafter, one of the decree

holders who is the respondent No.1 herein claimed

that she had not filed Execution Petition No.31/2013

and that she had not authorized the advocate to file

Execution Petition No