Karnataka High Court
Smt N Rajeshwari vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 August, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31529
WP No. 19405 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 19405 OF 2021 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SMT N. RAJESHWARI
W/O SRI B C NANJUNDA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY HER HUSBAND AND PA HOLDER,
SRI B.C.N. SETTY,
S/O LATE B S CHANDRAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT NO.6, KRISHNA COLONY,
GANGAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
MAHADEVAPURA,
BANGALORE-560 048.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Digitally signed BANGALORE-560 001.
by SUMA B N
Location: High
Court of 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Karnataka
BANGALORE CITY,
INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE.
3. THE SHO
BYAPPANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
NEAR RMZ, BANGALORE-560 016.
4. SRI MUNISUBBANNA
S/O DODDASUBBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT OLD NO.2, NEW NO.180,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31529
WP No. 19405 of 2021
IST MAIN ROAD, IST CROSS,
KRISHNAIAHNA PALYA,
INDIRA NAGAR POST,
NEAR NGEF, BANGALORE-560 036.
5. SRI SRINIVAS
S/O DODDASUBBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT OLD NO.2, NEW NO.180,
IST MAIN ROAD, IST CROSS,
KRISHNAIAHNA PALYA,
INDIRA NAGAR POST,
NEAR NGEF, BANGALORE-560 036.
6. SRI NARAYANA SWAMY
S/O CHIKKASUBBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT OLD NO.2, NEW NO.180,
IST MAIN ROAD, IST CROSS,
KRISHNAIAHNA PALYA,
INDIRA NAGAR POST,
NEAR NGEF, BANGALORE-560 036.
7. SMT NARAYANAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT OLD NO.2, NEW NO.180,
IST MAIN ROAD, IST CROSS,
KRISHNAIAHNA PALYA,
INDIRA NAGAR POST,
NEAR NGEF, BANGALORE-560 036.
8. SMT VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
MAJOR, R/AT DEVASANDRA
OPPOSITE GOVT.HIGH SCHOOL,
K R PURAM, BANGALORE-560 016.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. INDRADHANUSH CHAVAN., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R5 AND R7
SRI. C. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 TO GIVE PROTECTION TO
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:31529
WP No. 19405 of 2021
PETITIONER,HER HUSBAND AND TO THEIR PROPERTY MENTIONED
IN THE SCHEDULE BELOW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY IN 'B' GROUP,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
This petition seeking issuance of writ of mandamus
directing the respondents 1 to 3 police authorities to grant
protection to the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she had
purchased properties bearing No.73/1 and 58/2 situated at
Beeniganahalli Dakle, Krishnaiahna Palya, K.R.Puram
Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. After purchase of property
petitioner started construction. At that time respondent
No.5 along with her sisters started interfering with the
construction activities constraining the petitioner to file
suit in O.S.No.3577/1990 seeking an order of permanent
injunction. Said suit in O.S.No.3577/1990 came to be
decreed and though defendants preferred appeal against
the same, it came to be dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:31529
3. Learned counsel for petitioner reiterating the
grounds urged in the memorandum of petition takes this
Court through the Judgment and decree dated 25.10.2006
passed in O.S.No.3577/1990 on the file of XV Additional
City Civil Judge, Bengaluru and submits that the said suit
was decreed in favour of the petitioner directing the
defendants/private respondents herein restraining them
permanently from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in
any way from meddling or demolishing the compound wall
existing on the property.
4. He submits rights of petitioner has been
confirmed in terms of the Judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.3577/1990. That despite there being Judgment
and decree in favour of petitioner-plaintiff, private
respondents are causing interference and hardship to the
petitioner and petitioner being a lady not able to resist the
highhanded acts of the respondents. Hence, seeks for
direction to respondents 1 to 3 for protection.
NC: 2024:KHC:31529
4. Learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8 on the
other hand submits that a confirmation deed has been
executed and registered by them on 04.04.2024 in favour
of the petitioner declaring, accepting acknowledging the
petitioner to be the absolute owner of the schedule
property and that they have not interfered in any manner
whatsoever with her rights. He further submits present
petition is filed only to harass them, without any substance
in the allegations made therein. Submission taken on
record.
5. Heard and perused the records.
6. The relief as sought for is only for a direction to
respondents 1 to 3 to provide protection to the petitioner,
based on Judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.3577/1990. Petition is of the year 2021. Nothing
is placed on record with regard to inability of the petitioner
to approach the Court which had passed the decree
seeking execution of the same.
NC: 2024:KHC:31529
Should there be any interference or violation of said
Judgment and decree petitioner has effective and alternate
remedy under the provisions of Order 21 CPC including
seeking police protection and trial Court which has passed
the decree is competent and capable of passing such
orders if the facts and circumstances warranting such
orders are established to the satisfaction.
Further in view of submission made by the counsel
for respondent Nos.4 to 8 of they not causing any
interference in the enjoyment of the property by the
petitioner as alleged, nothing survives for consideration,
Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
SBN
