Karnataka High Court
WP/27953/2026 of SRI. B.C. CHANNAKESHAVA, Vs SRI. S. RAJAKUMAR, on 24 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010611232026 NC: 2026:KHC:52978 WP No. 27953 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 27953 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B.C. CHANNAKESHAVA, S/O. CHANNEGOWDA,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 27953 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. B.C. CHANNAKESHAVA,
S/O. CHANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
2.
SRI. B.C. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O. CHANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT. SUNNADAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUDLIGERE HOBLI - 577 245
BHADRAVATHI.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V. B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. S. RAJAKUMAR,
S/O. LATE. BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT. C/O. GARE KRISHNAPPA,
MALINA KOPPA, MAARIDIBBA,
LAKKAVALLI, TARIKERE TALUK - 577 128
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT
2.
SMT. K. LEELAVATHI @ K. LEELAVATHI,
W/O LATE SRI. K.M.SADANIDHI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B
S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
3.
SRI. JANA SELVA,
S/O LATE SRI. K.M.SADANIDHI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
.
4.
SMT. S. KALAVATHI,
D/O LATE SRI. K.M.SADANIDHI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESPONDENT No.2 TO 4 ARE
R/O. HALESANTHE MAIDHANA,
4TH CROSS, OLD TOWN,
BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.
5.
SRI JAWARILAL LODHA
S/O SRI. PUKHRAJ JI LODHA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O OLD SANTHE MAIDAN,
BHADRAVATHI 577301.
6.
SRI. GHEESHULAL MEHTHA
S/O SRI. LUNAMAL JI MEHTHA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O BOOTHANAGUDI,
OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI 577 301
7.
SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE SRI. SADANIDHI
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/O HALESANTHE MAIDHANA
4th CROSS, OLD TOWN
BHDRAVATHI 577 301
8.
SRI. M PADMANABHAN
S/O SRI. M MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O GUNDU RAO SHED,
TARIKERE ROAD, OLD TOWN,
BHADRAVATHI 577301
…RESPONDENTS
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 24.02.2026, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BHADRAVATHI, IN EX.
NO.58/2023, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1/DECREE
HOLDER, UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 11 OF CPC FOR DELIVERY
OF POSSESSION, VIDE, ANNEXURE - N.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed impugning the order dated 24.02.2026 passed in Execution No.58/2023, whereby the Executing Court entertained the application filed under Order XXI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), seeking delivery of possession.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were allotted a share in the FDP pursuant to the order dated 03.02.2003. However, no share has been allotted to the petitioners in the final order passed in the FDP. It is contended that, unless the direction contained in the order dated 03.02.2003 for allotment of the share is given
HC-KAR
effect to, the direction for delivery of possession cannot be acted upon.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
4. It is to be noted that the suit for partition was decreed in O.S. No.44/1987, which came to be finally adjudicated in FDP No.11/2001 and RSA No.387/1992. The application impugned in the present petition was filed only for delivery of possession in terms of the final decree passed in FDP No.11/2001 on 02.12.2015.
5. If the petitioners have any grievance with regard to non-allotment of their share in the final decree dated 02.12.2015, it is open to them to work out their remedies in accordance with law. However, such grievance, by itself, cannot constitute an impediment to the execution of the said decree.
6. The Executing Court, having considered the aforesaid aspects, has held that the execution petition filed under Order XXI Rule 11 of the CPC is maintainable. No ground is made out for interference with the order impugned.
HC-KAR
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26