IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.15247 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN: YASHODHA, D/O LATE A M BASAVARAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS ADVERTISEMENT SECTION, JANATHA VANI DAILY NEWS PAPER, DIXIT ROAD, ASHOKA ROAD, K. B. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-577 002.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADV.)

AND:

A. H. NAGABHUSHANA S/O A. H. THIPPAIAH Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH BUSINESS, R/O D NO.1724/10, COURT OF KARNATAKA BEHIND JAILINGESHWAR TEMPLE P B ROAD, NEAR RAILWAY LANE, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. REVANNA BELLARY, ADV.)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER VIDE ANNX-E DATED 19.08.2020 PASSED BY THE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN EXECUTION NO.93/2016 BY ALLOWING IA NO.III VIDE ANNX-C REJECTING THE EXECUTION NO.93/2016 AS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER

1. Petitioner who is the daughter of one deceased Sri. A.M. Basavarajaiah, the Judgment Debtor is before this Court being aggrieved by the Order dated 19.08.2020 passed on I.A.III, on the file of Addl. Civil Judge, Davanagere in Ex.No.93/2016.

2. The above execution petition is filed by the Respondent seeking execution of decree for recovery of money passed in O.S.No.503/2010 against the father of petitioner herein. Since the father of petitioner who is the Judgment Debtor in the said execution proceedings passed away petitioner herein is made as party to the proceedings.

3. By the impugned Order, the Executing Court has rejected the said application in I.A.III filed by the petitioner herein under sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, whereby the petitioner herein had sought to dismiss the Execution Petition as not maintainable on the premise of she not being liable to discharge the dues of her father. While dismissing the application, the Executing Court has noted that it has no power to go beyond the Decree except to execute the same and the grounds urged by the petitioner cannot be considered in the execution proceedings. It is this order which has led to the present Writ Petition.

4. Heard Sri. M.R. Hiremathad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Revanna Bellary, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein, relying upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of VINAYAK PURSHOTTAM DUBE (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. Vs. JAYASHREE PADAMKAR BHAT AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2024 SC (CIVIL) 994, submits that unless and until the respondent - Decree Holder establishes the fact that deceased Judgment Debtor i.e. father of the petitioner herein had left behind property inheritable by the petitioner as his legal heir, he could not have maintained the Execution Petition. Learned counsel further submits that deceased Judgment Debtor had left behind not just the petitioner herein but also four other children and the respondent - Decree Holder has not chosen to make them as parties to the said Execution Petition. On these two counts, learned counsel seeks for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent - Decree Holder, on the other hand submits that, without making the legal representatives of the deceased Judgment Debtor, there is no possibility of seeking recovery of the money due. Learned counsel submits that the Executing Court is justified in rejecting the application filed under Sub-Section (4) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as the same was alien to the subject matter involved in the matter. However, to a specific query of this Court, he submits that respondent - Decree Holder is yet to ascertain the property if any left behind by the deceased against which the Decree could be executed. Learned