Karnataka High Court
Kalaiah vs Nanjundappa on 18 February, 2022
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.23441 OF 2021 (GM CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. KALAIAH
S/O KALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
DEAD BY LRS,
1(a) LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE KALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
1(b) C. K. MANJUNATHA
D/O LATE KALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
1(c) LATHA
W/O BYRAPPA
D/O LATE KKALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O THYGYAMMA EXTENTION
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TOWN & TALUK
2. THIMMAIAH
S/O JAVARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
DEAD BY LRS
2(a) SMT. THIMMAMMA
W/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
2
2(b) C.T.MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2(c) ASHA RANI C. T.
W/O LATE SURESH H. V.
D/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
2(d) SACHIN C .T.
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
2(e) SHYALAJA C.T.
W/O GOPALA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
2(f) JYOTHI
W/O CHANDRA SHEKARA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
3. RAVINDRA
S/O C. G. CHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
PRESIDENT
THYAGAMMA DEVI SEVA SAMITHI (R)
4. C. P. MANJUNATHA
S/O PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
SECRETARY, SRI THYAGAMMA DEVI SEVA SAMITHI (R)
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TOWN AND TALUK
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.N.P.AMRUTHESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.SUMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. NANJUNDAPPA
S/O PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O THYAGAMMA EXTENTION
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TOWN AND TALUK
3
2. C. G. RAJAPPA
S/O GURUVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
DEAD BY LRS
2(a) C. R. RENUKDA PRASAD
S/O LATE C. G. RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
2(b) C. R. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O LATE C. G. RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING MYSORE ROAD
BEHIND K.E.B.
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TOWN TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT.
3. C. G. NAGARAJA
S/O GANTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
DEAD BY LRS,
3(a) MANJULAMMA
W/O LATE C. G. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
3(b) RENU
S/O LATE C.G.NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3(c) ANITHA
D/O LATE C.G.NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
3(d) VENU
S/O LATE C.G.NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING RENUKAMBA ROAD
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TOWN AND TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT
4
4. THIMMAIAH
S/O JAVARAIAH @ ANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R/O THAYAGAMMA EXTENSION
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TOWN AND TALUK
4(a) JAYAMMA
W/O LATE THIMMAIAH
R/AT THAGYAMMA DEVI EXTENSION
MYSORE ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT.
4(b) GEETHA
W/O RAJ
BHARATHIPURA (VILLAGE)
SANTHE BACHAHALLI (HOBLI)
K.R. PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT
4(c) SHIVARAJ. T
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
OCC:AGRICULTURIST
R/AT THAGYAMMA DEVI EXTENSION
MYSORE ROAD, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE
CHANNARAYAPATTNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT.
4(d) SHIVALINGA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/AT THAGYAMMA DEVI EXTENSION
MYSORE ROAD, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT.
4(e) MANJUNATH
S/O LATE THAMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
R/AT THAGYAMMA DEVI EXTENSION
MYSORE ROAD, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT
5
4(f) PADMA
W/O VYKUNTA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC. HOUSE WIFE
R/AT BASAVANAHALLI (V)
KIKKERI (HOBLI), K.R. PET TLAUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
4(g) BABU
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/AT THAGYAMMA DEVI EXTENSION,
MYSORE ROAD, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE,
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
4(h) KALAVATHI
W/O BABU
OCC: HOUSE WIFE
DOOR NO. 586, 1ST CROSS, CENTRAL JAIL
PARADANA AGRAHARA MAIN ROAD
VASTHE LAYOUT, CHANNAKESHAVA NAGAR
HOSA ROAD, ELECTRICITY POST
BENGALURU - 560100.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKATESH.R.BHAGATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
OF IN R.A.NO.31/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNARAYAPATTANA TO
CULMINATING THE ORDER IMPUGNED DTD:20.11.2021 AT
ANNEXURE-A TO THE PRESENT W.P. AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRE-LIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
6
ORDER
The petitioners aggrieved by the order on I.A. No.2,
passed in R.A.No.31/2021 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Channarayapatna, have filed this petition.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are
as under:
The petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.66/2009
for declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit,
the respondents appeared and filed a written statement.
The Trial Court after recording the evidence and after
hearing the parties dismissed the suit filed by the
petitioners.
3. Petitioners aggrieved by the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court filed an appeal in R.A.
No.31/2021. In the said appeal, the petitioners filed an
application seeking for stay of judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court. The said application is opposed
by the respondent by filing objections. The Appellate Court
after hearing the parties rejected the application. Hence,
this petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and also
learned counsel for caveator/respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the Appellate Court has committed an error in passing
the impugned order. He further submits that if the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is not
stayed, there shall be a law and order problem. He submits
that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is
arbitrary. Hence, on this ground he prays to allow the writ
petition.
6. Per contra learned counsel for respondents
supports the impugned order.
7. Heard and perused the records and considering
the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
It is not in dispute that petitioners have filed a suit for
declaration and injunction in O.S. No.66/2009. The Trial
Court dismissed the suit vide Judgment and decree dated
06.04.2021.
8. The petitioners being aggrieved by the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court preferred
an appeal in R.A.No.31/2021 and in the said appeal, the
petitioners have filed an application under Section 151 of
Code of Civil Procedure.
9. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial
court is not an executable order and the question of
staying the operation of judgment and decree passed by
the Trial Court in O.S.No.66/2009 does not arise. The said
view is reiterated by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in
the case of Gangamma V/s Veeranna reported in ILR 1995
Karnataka, 1812.
10. In view of the same, Appellate Court is
justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellant.
11. Hence, I do not find any grounds to interfere in
the impugned order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GVP
