IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO.116 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1 . SMT MARULASIDDAMMA

W/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

2 . SMT. K.S. TANUJA

W/O KARUNAKARA &

D/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KARUGUNDA,

JAVAGAL HOBLI,

ARSIKERE TALUK,

HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . GURUSIDDAPPA

S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS,

RESIDING AT KARUGUNDA,

JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK,

HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103.

2

2 . K.S. BASAVARAJU

S/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

RESIDING AT KARUGUNDA,

JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK,

HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103.

&RESPONDENTS

R-1 SERVED UNREPRESENTED

R-2 SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER

DATED 10.01.2018.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2017 PASSED BY THE Court OF

THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ARASIKERE IN

EX.NO.39 OF 2004 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G AND

DIRECT THE COURT BELOW TO PROCEED WITH THE

EXECUTION

PETITION

IN

EX.NO.39/2004

TILL

THE

DECREE IS EXECUTED AND THE DECREE PASSED IN

O.S.NO.108

OF

1991

IS

FULLY

SATISFIED

IN

ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Petitioners

aggrieved

by

the

order

dated

09.11.2017 passed in Ex.No.39/2004 by the Principal

Civil Judge & JMFC, Arasikere, have filed the present

writ petition.

3

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are

as under:

Petitioners and respondent No.2 filed a suit in

O.S.No.108/1991 for declaration that the suit property

is ancestral Hindu joint family property consisting of

petitioners, respondent No.2 and late Shivalingappa

and the sale deed dated 31.10.1986 created between

respondent No.1 and Shivalingappa is not binding on

the rights of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.108.1991. The

said suit came to be decreed on 08.07.1996.

Respondent No.1 aggrieved by the judgment and

decree dated 08.07.1996, preferred an appeal in

R.A.No.27/1996. The said appeal came to be

dismissed vide judgment dated 07.02.1998 and

confirmed by this Court in RSA No.502/1998 by

judgment dated 25.09.2001. The petitioners and

respondent No.2 filed execution in Ex.P.No.39/2004 to

execute the decree passed in O.S.No.108/1991.

4

During the pendency of the execution petition,

respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.438/2001

against

the

petitioners,

respondent

No.2

and

Shivalingappa seeking for general partition and

separate possession. The said suit was contested by

petitioners and respondent No.2. The said suit was

partly

decreed

by

judgment

dated 30.11.2004.

Respondent No.1 aggrieved by the judgment and

award passed in O.S.No.438/2001, preferred an

appeal in R.A.No.75/2005. The Appellate Court vide

judgment dated 13.02.2008 allowed the appeal and

set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial

Court and decreed the suit as prayed for. The

petitioners aggrieved by the judgment and decree

passed in the said appeal, preferred a second appeal

in RSA No.1339/2008. This Court granted an interim

order staying the execution and operation of the

judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.438/2001.

5

The petitioners have produced copy of the interim

order passed by this Court in RSA No.1339/2008,

before the Executing Court on 19/09/2008 and the

same has been recorded by the Executing Court. The

Executing Court dismissed the Execution Petition on

the ground that the petitioners have not taken steps

for further execution of the petition and that the

petition was more than 13 years old. Hence the

petitioners,

aggrieved

by

the

dismissal

of

the

execution petition, have filed this petition.