Karnataka High Court
Sri G Maheshwariah vs Sri G Shadakshari @ Vasanth on 17 November, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47082
WP No. 22878 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 22878 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI G MAHESHWARIAH
SINCE DECEASED REP.
BY LEGAL HEIRS.
1a. SMT. REVATHI
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
W/O LATE G. MAHESHWARIAH.
1b. SRI RAKESH M
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE G. MAHESHWARIAH.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.47
15TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
Digitally
1c. SMT. RANJEETHA SANTHOS
signed by
NANDINI M S AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
Location: D/O LATE G. MAHESHWARIAH
HIGH COURT R/AT NO.202, 2ND MAIN
OF 14TH CROSS, HIG LAYOUT
KARNATAKA RMV, 2ND STAGE, BEHIND RMV CLUB
BENGALURU - 560 094.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHEKAR SHETTY, ADV., FOR
SRI RANGARAMU V, ADV.)
AND:
SRI G. SHADAKSHARI @ VASANTH
SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS
1. SMT. G. SHATHA KUMARI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47082
WP No. 22878 of 2022
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
W/O LATE G SHADAKSHARI @ VASANTH.
2. SRI S. SHANKAR
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O LATE G SHADAKSHARI @ VASANTH.
3. SRI S. SACHINNA
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O LATE G. SHADAKSHARI @ VASANTH.
4. SMT. ANITHA
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O LATE G. SHADAKSHARI @ VASANTH.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.34
1ST ANJANEYA ROAD
SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALUGU - 560 020.
5. T.S. SUBBANNA SARVAJANIKA
EDUCATIONAL TRUST
VIDYARANYAPURAM
MYSURU, REP. BY ITS TRUSTEES
SRI C S NIRANJAN KUMAR
PRESIDENT OF THE ABOVE TRUST
S/O C M SHIVAMALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT CHOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE
HUNDIPURA POST
HANGALA HOBLI GUNDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJANGAGARA DISTRICT - 571 111.
6. SRI G.C. RAJANNA
S/O CHIKKANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT NO.1 BLOCK NO.7
JSS NAGARA DR RAJKUMAR ROAD
MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT.
7. SMT. B. SUVARNADEVI
W/O P.N. PUTTAMALLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT NO.2876, DIWAN POORNAIAH
STREET, BESIDE GOVT SCHOOL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47082
WP No. 22878 of 2022
HC-KAR
SRIRANGAPATTANA TOWN
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438.
8. SRI B. NAGARAJA MURTHY
S/O LATE BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.545 HIG VIMANA
8TH MAIN H BLOCK 3RD CROSS
RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR MYSURU.
9. SMT. H.M. VASANTHAMMA
W/O DR. NEELISIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NO.MIG 37
VASANTHA MAHAL
HUDCO GANGOTHRI LAYOUT
MYSURU - 570 009.
10. SRI D.G. SOMASHEKARA MURTHY
S/O LATE G. GURU SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO.156, GOWRISHANKARA
NAGAR, MYSURU - 560 025.
11. SRI D. NAGUNAIK
S/O LATE DURGANAIK
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.347 20TH MAIN ROAD
J.P. NAGAR 2ND STAGE
MYSURU - 570 008.
12. SRI DR. P.N. HARISH
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.164-2ND MAIN ROAD
BEHIND GANAPATHI TEMPLE ROAD
VIJAYASHREEPURA
MYSURU - 570 006.
13. SRI DR. A.S. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE A.G. SUBBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.62 OMKAR LAYOUT
J.P. NAGAR MYSURU.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:47082
WP No. 22878 of 2022
HC-KAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.S. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADV.,
FOR R-5 TO R-9, R-11 TO R13
R-10 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR MODIFY THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2021 AND I.A.NO 2/2021 IN
O.S.NO 147/2021 DATED 04.02.2022 , PASSED BY THE HONBLE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT CHAMARAJANAGAR. A COPY AT
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioners are before this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated
04.02.2022 passed on IA.nos.1 & 2 in O.S.No.147/2021 by the
Court of Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Chamarajanagara, and the
order dated 20.08.2022 passed in M.A.No.2/2022 by the Court
of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. O.S.No.147/2021 is filed before the jurisdictional Civil
Court at Chamarajanagara, with prayers to declare that the
plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the suit schedule property,
NC: 2025:KHC:47082
HC-KAR
and also declare the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2018
passed in R.F.A.No.1139/2010 and the order dated 31.07.2018
passed in R.P.No.220/2018, are nullity in the eye of law and
non-est.
4. In the said suit, IA.no.1 was filed under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC, with a prayer to
restrain the defendants, their men or anybody claiming under
them, from obstructing the possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property by the plaintiffs. IA.no.2 was filed under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC, with a
prayer to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit
schedule property during the pendency of the suit.
5. The said applications were opposed by the contesting
defendants by filing objections. The Trial Court vide order dated
04.02.2022 dismissed IA.nos.1 & 2 filed in O.S.No.147/2021,
and the said order has been confirmed by the Appellate Court
in M.A.No.2/2022 by order date 20.08.2022. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid two orders, plaintiffs in O.S.No.147/2021 are before
this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:47082
HC-KAR
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits
that the suit in O.S.No.71/1986 was a suit under Section 92 of
CPC. Prior permission of the Court was not obtained before
filing the plaint in O.S.No.71/1986. Therefore, the judgment
and decree passed in the said suit cannot be executed.
Defendants in the present suit are trying to take advantage of
the judgment and decree in O.S.No.71/1986 and are trying to
interfere with the possession of the suit schedule property by
the plaintiffs/petitioners. He submits that a judgment and
decree passed without jurisdiction by any court cannot be
executed, and the same is a nullity. In support of his
arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DEVASAHAYAM (DEAD)
BY LRS. VS P.SAVITHRAMMA & OTHERS - (2005)7 SCC 653,
B.S.ADITYAN & OTHERS VS B.RAMACHANDRAN ADITYAN &
OTHERS - AIR 2004 SC 3448, DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL VS
B.D.AGARWAL - (2003)6 SCC 230.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has
argued in support of the orders impugned.
NC: 2025:KHC:47082
HC-KAR
8. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that
O.S.No.71/1986 was filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court at
Mysuru invoking Section 92 of CPC and petitioners herein are
party defendant nos.5 & 6 in the said suit. The said suit was
clubbed with O.S.No.2/2002 and a common judgment was
passed on the aforesaid suits, partly decreeing the suits.
Challenging the judgment and decree passed in OS No.71/1986
and OS No.2/2002, defendant no.3 in OS No.71/1986 had filed
RFA No.1132/2010 and plaintiffs in OS No.2/2002 had filed RFA
No.1139/2010 before this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court by judgment and decree dated 29.05.2018 had dismissed
R.F.A.No.1132/2010 and R.F.A.No.1139/2010 and the common
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.71/1986 and
O.S.No.2/2022 was modified as under:
"(a) RFA 1132/2010 is dismissed with costs.
(b) RFA 1139/2010 is also dismissed without costs.
(c) Judgments and decrees in O.S.71/1986 and
O.S.2/2002 are modified in the following manner:-
(i) The first defendant in O.S.No.71/1986 Sri
Mahanta Swamiji of Devanur Mutt is ordered to be
removed from the trust.
NC: 2025:KHC:47082
HC-KAR
(ii) The trial court is directed to frame a scheme for
appointing new trustees. This process shall be completed
within six months from the date of receipt of records.
(iii) The sale deed/deeds executed by Sri Mahanta
Swamiji on 6.1.1986 and registered on 29.8.1986 in
favour of defendants 5 and 6 namely G.Maheshwara and
G.shadakshara respectively in O.S.71/1986 with respect
of 32 acres 9 guntas of land at Haradanahalli, H.D.Kote
Taluk, is/are declared as invalid and not binding on the
trust. These defendants are directed to hand over the
possession of the said land to the trust.
(iv) The administrators are directed to administer
and manage the affairs of the trust till a scheme is framed
and new trustees are appointed. They are also directed to
hand over charge to the new trustees appointed under a
scheme to be framed by the District Court.
(v) The administrators shall handover all the
properties, movable and immovable and such other thing
or things, belonging to the trust and books of accounts
and other registers and documents of the trust that are
with them to the new trustees and shall also render
accounts to the new trustees.
(d) I.A.No.5/2017 and I.A.No.1/2018 are
dismissed.
(e) The Registry of this Court is hereby directed to
transmit the records to District Court Mysuru immediately
to enable it to frame a scheme."
NC: 2025:KHC:47082
HC-KAR
9. The petitioners herein had filed R.P.No.220/2018 with a
prayer to review the judgment and decree passed in
R.F.A.No.1132/2010 and the said review petition was dismissed
by this Court on 31.07.2018. Thereafter, the petitioners had
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court assailing the judgment
and decree passed by this Court in R.F.A.No.1139/2010 dated
29.05.2018 and the order passed in R.P.No.220/2018 dated
31.07.2018. It appears that the special leave petitions filed by
the petitioners herein in SLP(C).Nos.18992-993/2019 were
dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
07.09.2021. The Hon'ble Supreme Court having permitted the
petitioners to withdraw the special leave petitions, has
specifically observed in its order dated 07.09.2021 as under:
"Needless to say that the decree passed by the
High Court in Regular First Appeal No.1139 of 2010 has
become executable forthwith."
10. This Court in R.F.A.No.1132/2010 c/w
R.F.A.No.1139/2010 has recorded a finding that the sale
deed/deeds executed by Mahanta Swamiji (defendant no.1 in
O.S.No.71/1986) on 06.01.1986 and registered on 29.08.1986
in favour of defendant nos.5 & 6 viz., G.Maheshwara and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47082
HC-KAR
G.Shadakshara, who are petitioners herein in respect of
property measuring 32 guntas 9 guntas of land at
Haradanahalli, H.D.Kote Taluk, are invalid and not binding on
the Trust, and it was specifically observed that these
defendants viz., defendant nos.5 & 6 who are the petitioners
herein, are directed to hand over possession of the said land to
the Trust. This finding recorded by this Court has attained
finality in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in SLP(C).Nos.18992-993/2019, wherein it is held that
the decree passed by the High Court in R.F.A.No.1139/2010
has become executable forthwith.
11. On the face of the aforesaid order, the Trial Court as well
as the Appellate Court were fully justified in passing the
impugned orders. The judgments on which reliance has been
placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners cannot be made applicable to the present case
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present
case, more so since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed
while dismissing the special leave petitions that the decree
passed by this Court in R.F.A.No.1139/2010 is executable
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47082
HC-KAR
forthwith. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that
this writ petition is liable to dismissed. Accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
