Karnataka High Court
Mrs.P.Kiran vs Mr. Dinesh Solanki on 26 November, 2021
Bench: R. Nataraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.332 OF 2021
C/W
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.343 OF 2021
IN CRP NO.332 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. MRS.P.KIRAN
WIFE OF MR. P PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
#1136/A2, 1136/2,
(L4/A2) KURUBAGERI
1ST CROSS LASHKAR MOHALLA
MYSORE-570001
2. MR P PRAKASH
SON OF MR PARASMAL,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
#1136/A2 1136/2,
(L4/A2) KURUBAGERI
1ST CROSS LASHKAR MOHALLA,
MYSORE-570001
BOTH RESIDING ALSO AT:
D.NO.479, 4TH MAIN,
MARUTHI TEMPLE ROAD
TKLAYOUT, MYSURU-570009
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.PARASHURAM A.L., ADVOCATE) (VC)
2
AND:
1. MR. DINESH SOLANKI
SON OF M R CHOUDHARY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
190, 9TH CROSS,GOKULAM,
MYSURU-570002
2. MRS SHOBHA SOLANKI
W/O MR DINESH SOLANKI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
190, 9TH CROSS, GOKULAM,
MYSURU-570002
BOTH ALSO RESIDING AT:
D.NO. 2040/1(5), GOKULAM PARK ROAD
V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU-570002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
15.04.2021 PASSED ON APPLICATION IN EX.NO.180/2017
ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION
FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC.
IN CRP NO.343 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. P.KIRAN
WIFE OF MR. P PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
#1136/A2, 1136/2,
(L4/A2) KURUBAGERI
1ST CROSS LASHKAR MOHALLA
MYSORE-570001
3
2. MR. P PRAKASH
SON OF MR. PARASMAL,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
#1136/A2 1136/2,
(L4/A2) KURUBAGERI
1ST CROSS LASHKAR MOHALLA,
MYSORE-570001.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.PARASHURAM A.L., ADVOCATE) (VC)
AND:
1. MR. DINESH SOLANKI
SON OF M R CHOUDHARY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
190, 9TH CROSS,GOKULAM,
MYSURU-570002
2. MRS SHOBHA SOLANKI
WIFE OF MR. DINESH SOLANKI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
190, 9TH CROSS, GOKULAM,
MYSURU-570002
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION FILED UNDER
SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
19.08.2021 PASSED ON IA.NO.7 IN EX.NO. 180/2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
JMFC., MYSURU ALLOWING THE IA.NO.7 FILED UNDER
ORDER 26 RULE 10B R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FILED BY THE
DECREE HOLDERS THEREIN AND ETC.,
THESE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
IN CRP.NO.343/2021
This revision petition is filed challenging the order of
the Executing Court dated 15.04.2021 appointing a
Commissioner to present a document of sale, admit its
execution and for registration in compliance with the
compromise entered into O.S.No.89/2016.
2. The learned counsel for respondents submits
that the sale deed was executed on 02.11.2021 and
therefore, this revision petition has become infructuous.
The fact that the sale deed is executed has not disputed by
the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. Hence, this revision petition does not survive
for consideration. Consequently, the civil revision petition
is dismissed.
IN CRP.NO.332/2021
4. This revision petition is filed by the judgment
debtors in Execution No. 180/2017 challenging the
correctness of the order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the
Executing Court. By the aforesaid order, the Executing
Court rejected an application filed by the judgment debtors
challenging the maintainability of the executing petition.
5. The facts leading to filing of the instant
application are that a suit in O.S.No.89/2016 was filed for
specific performance of an agreement of sale. The said suit
was compromised and compramise decree was drawn on
31.03.2016. One of the terms of the compromise is as
below: -
"The Defendants now acknowledge another sum of
Rs.50,00,000/- (Fifty Lakhs) from Mr. Likmaram S/o
Late. Dhanaram a resident of #725, 4th West Cross,
Ashoka Road, Mysore, Sri Kanthilal Prajapathi S/o
Virmaram, aged about 37 years, #725, 4th West Cross,
Ashoka Road, Mysore and Sri Uday Singh S/o Jalam
Singh #725, 4th West Cross, Ashoka Road, Mysore who
are the joined purchasers of the schedule property in
pursuant of the nomination clause. Henceforth there
shall be 5 purchasers".
6. The judgment debtors challenged the
compromise as fraudulent before this Court in
W.P.No.26194/2019, which was dismissed and a special
leave petition preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was also dismissed. Long thereafter, an application is now
filed before the Executing Court contending that the
compromise between the parties contemplated that there
would be five purchasers instead of two and the execution
petition is filed only by two decree holders and the three
subsequent purchasers are not impleaded as decree
holders.
7. Answering the above contention, the decree
holders contended that the other three purchasers had
assigned their interest in favour of the decree holders and
therefore, the decree holders were entitled to execute the
decree. The Executing Court after considering rival
contentions held that the three assignee/agreement
holders were not decree holders and therefore, the
judgment debtors were liable to execute the sale deed.
8. Thereafter, the Executing Court had executed
the decree by restoring the sale deed on 02.11.2021 and
conveying the suit property to the decree holders. In that
view of the matter, since the judgment debtors have
received the money as stated in the compromise decree,
they cannot contest the execution of the decree on the
ground that rights were created in favor of three other
purchasers. Hence, there is no merit in this revision
petition.
9. In view of the statement by the decree holders
that three agreement holders have assigned their right,
title and interest in favour of the decree holders, the
judgment debtors are insulated from any claim at the
instance of the said three agreement holders. If there is
any claim of the said three agreement holders, the same
shall be proceeded only against the decree holders and not
against the judgment debtors.
10. Consequently, this revision petition stands
disposed off on the above terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NR/NM
