IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.101443 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. JAILAXMI W/O. JAYRAM RAIKAR, AGE 66 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. H.NO.115, KAMKSHINIVAS, 1^ST STAGE, SHIRUR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580021.

2. SRI VIJAY S/O. JAYRAM RAIKAR, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.115, KAMKSHINIVAS, 1^ST STAGE, SHIRUR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580021.

3. SRI SURAJ S/O. JAYRAM RAIKAR, AGE 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.115, KAMKSHINIVAS, 1^ST STAGE, SHIRUR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580021.

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR 4. SUBHANGI D/O. JAYRAM RAIKAR, Location: HIG H AGE 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, COURT OF R/O. H.NO.115, KAMKSHINIVAS, KARNATAKA

1^ST STAGE, SHIRUR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580021 PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 4 REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER PETITIONER NO.2. 5. SRI NAGRAJ S/O. RATNAKAR RAIKAR, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. RAIKAR BUILDING, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580021. - PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAKASH K.JAWALKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. JAYASHREE W/O. DATTATREYA REVANKAR, AGE 72 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 268, LATAKUNJ CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, ROAD NO.31, SION EAST, MUMBAI-400022.

2. SMT. PRAMILA @ PRAVEEN, W/O. PRAMOD VERNEKAR, AGE 70 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GOODSHED ROAD, NEAR NATHAKI TALKIES, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O. UDA BELLUBBI, AGE 68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 11^TH CROSS, H.NO.2585, E BLOCK, II STAGE, RAJAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560010.

4. SMT. LEELA @ VANDANA, W/O. VILAS PAWASKAR, AGE 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MAXEM, CANCON, GOA-403702.

5. SMT. GULABI @ LAXMI, W/O. NAGARAJ DIWAKAR, AGE 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. P J EXTENSION, WRITER EXTENSION, DAVANGERE-577001. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH A.YADWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUBBALLI IN EX. CASE NO. 110/2018 DISMISSING I.A.NO.IV & ETC.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A. No. 4 in Ex. Case No. 110/2018 dated 05.02.2026 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, judgment debtors No. 1(A to D) and 2 are before this Court.

2. A final decree was passed whereby all the parties to the suit were granted 1/8^th share. The petitioners (judgment debtors No. 1(A to D) and 2), except decree holder No. 5, entered into a compromise with all other defendants and now 7 shares have fallen to the petitioners and one share to respondent No.5. On 17.07.2012, the properties were divided by meets and bounds and a particular portion of the property on the ground floor and first floor marked as ‘E, F, I, J’ was allotted to respondent No.5. The present I.A. No. 4 was filed by the petitioners herein under Section 47 read with 151 CPC seeking to determine the feasibility of enforcing the decree and handing over the portion of 1/8^th share of the decree holder (respondent No.5) and the said application came to be dismissed by order impugned. While dismissing the application, the trial Court has observed that the respondent No.5 / decree holder cannot be compelled to submit a settlement when the judgment debtors themselves are unwilling to offer any tangible or lawful alternative. The decree holder has acted with utmost bonafide throughout the proceedings. She made several reasonable offers to the judgment debtors, expressing her willingness to accept in lieu of her share. Despite such repeated and fair offers, the judgment debtors have shown complete unwillingness to part with any portion of the property. The evidence was led by both the parties wherein it was stated that property may not be suitable for convenient partition. Such evidence pertains only to convenience, not to entitleme