THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KHANAPUR IN EP NO.13/2021 DATED 30.08.2025 AS NULL AND VOID AND RESTORE THE EXECUTION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS CRP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.04.2026 AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING FROM BANGALORE BENCH, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

CAV JUDGMENT

Challenging order dated 30.08.2025 passed by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Khanapur (‘Executing Court’, for short) in Execution Petition no.13/2021, this petition is filed.

2. Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, revision petition was by decree holder (‘DHr’, for short) challenging order passed by Executing Court dismissing execution petition. It was submitted, DHr had earlier filed OS no.82/2011 against respondent (‘JDr’, for short) for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10.01.2011 (‘AoS’, for short), in respect of land bearing RS no.162/1A/2 measuring 4 Acres 1 gunta situated at Golihalli village, which ended in compromise before Lok Adalath on 21.04.2011. As per award, JDr was to execute registered sale deed in favour of DHr failing which DHr could get it executed through Court.

3. And as JDr failed, Ex.P.no.13/2021 was filed on 30.01.2021. On appearance, JDr filed objections contending Execution Petition was not maintainable as JDr belonged to ‘SC community’ and suit property was granted to him by Tahsildar, Khanapur. Therefore, decree was hit by provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘PTCL’ for short). It was contended, AoS violated PTCL and decree was obtained by fraud.

4. Hence, Executing Court framed following:

Points:

i. Whether JDrs prove that disputed land is ‘granted land’ as defined in Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PTCL) Act, 1978 and Rules 1979?

ii. Whether JDrs prove that award passed by this Court is null and void?

iii. Whether award passed by this Court in OS no.82/2011 deserves to be executed?

iv. What order?

5. To establish same, JDr deposed as JDW-1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D13. On consideration, Executing Court answered points no.1 and 2 in affirmative, point no.3 in negative and point no.4 by dismissing Execution Case as not maintainable, leading to this revision petition.

6. It was submitted, suit was for specific performance of AoS. Since, JDr neither disputed AoS nor receipt of consideration, suit ended in compromise decree before Lok Adalath. For execution of said compromise decree, Execution Petition was filed. Though it was opposed on ground that decree granted against JDr, who belonged to scheduled caste (‘SC’ for short) was in violation of PTCL, but without even stating that proceedings were initiated under PTCL. Therefore, Executing Court erred in dismissing execution case only on JDr’s objection.

7. It was submitted, application of provisions of PTCL would arise only on determination whether land in question was ‘granted land’, which cannot be decided by Civil Court, but only by authorities under PTCL. Therefore, finding of Executing Court on point no.1 was without jurisdiction especially under Section 47 of CPC. In support of his submissions, he relied on decision of this Court in Chowdappa and Ors. v. Chowdappa (deceased) by LRs and Ors., reported in 2000 (2) Kar LJ 292.

8. Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepa Bhargava and Anr. v. Mahesh Bhargava and Ors., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 294, it was submitted, Executing Court cannot decide on nullity of judgment and decree and in any case, compromise decree before Lok Adalath could be challenged only in a writ petition. Therefore, impugned order passed by Executing Court not only exceeded jurisdiction, but also exercised jurisdiction not vested in it and with mater