Karnataka High Court
Sri. P Subramanyam vs Smt. P Aishwarya Lakshmi on 4 January, 2021
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.14517 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
1 . SRI. P. SUBRAMANYAM
S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
2 . SMT. P. GANGA BHAVANI,
W/O RAMACHANDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
3 . SRI. P. RAMACHANDRA RAO,
S/O VASANTHA RAYUDU,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.65-17-4,
KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI STREET,
DWARAKA NAGAR, KANDAYAPALAM,
KAKINADA,
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT-533003. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR D, ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. P. AISHWARYA LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.F-2, GREEN COMFORT APARTMENT,
ANJENEYA TEMPLE STREET,
BYRASANDRA C.V. RAMAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560093. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE A DATED 05.03.2018,
REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS TO THE EXECUTION PETITION
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXVII
2
ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY
AND ALLOW THE OBJECTIONS AS PRAYED AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners being the judgment debtors, are knocking at
the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 5.3.2020
(wrongly mentioned as 5.3.2018), a copy whereof is at
Annexure-A whereby their resistance to the execution
proceedings in Execution No.2935/2018 has been negatived
by the learned XXXVII Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-38),
Bangalore city.
2. After service of notice, the first respondent having
entered appearance through her counsel, opposes the writ
petition making vehement submission in justification of the
impugned order and the reasons on which it is structured.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to
grant indulgence in the matter because:
(a) In the Compromise Petition dated 3.9.2012 filed
by the petitioners and respondent herein, para 6 reads as
under:
"The Defendant No.2 has agreed to execute a gift
deed in respect of the property bearing No.83-436-
23/1-F2 (PID number) to transfer the said property
in favour of her grand-daughter, i.e., P. Vaishnavi
Santhoshi Srivani, (Plaintiff No.2 herein) and it is
agreed that the Plaintiff No.1 and the Defendant
No.1 shall be the joint guardians of the child with
respect to the above-stated property. The gifting of
the property (PID No.83-436-23/1-F2) shall be done
upon the withdrawal of all the civil suits, the
compounding of the criminal cases and the divorce
decree whichever is last. In case the Defendant
No.2 fails to execute the gift deed within one week
after the withdrawal/settlement of the civil and
criminal cases and the passing of the decree of
divorce, the Plaintiffs can seek execution and
registration of the said gift deed by filing an
Execution Petition and for that, the Defendants No.1
and 2 shall not have any objection."
(b) It is contended by the learned counsel for the
respondent that in terms of this settlement, all criminal cases
have been withdrawn by her which is not disputed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners although he points out
that this withdrawal happened belatedly in the year 2018
with the involvement of both the sides; and
(c) Granting relief to the petitioners in the Writ
Petition virtually amounts to altering the terms of settlement
between the parties which courts would not ordinarily do in
the absence of cogent grounds therefor; courts do not re-write
the agreements/compromises which the parties have
consciously concluded between them.
In the above circumstances, Writ Petition is rejected; a
request is made to the learned Judge of the court below to
accomplish the execution within a period of three months and
report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cbc
