Karnataka High Court
WP/26518/2026 of SRI. DEVARAJEGOWDA Vs SMT. LAXMAMMA DEAD BY LRS., on 31 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010589972026 NC: 2026:KHC:47113 WP No. 26518 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 26518 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. DEVARAJEGOWDA S/O NINGAMMA AND
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 26518 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. DEVARAJEGOWDA
S/O NINGAMMA AND PUTTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT YEMMEKOPPAL VILLAGE,
BILIKERE HOBLI,
HUNSUR - 571 103
2.
SRI. MAHADEVEGOWDA,
S/O NINGAMMA AND PUTTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT YEMMEKOPPAL VILLAGE,
BILIKERE HOBLI,
HUNSUR - 571 103,
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V. MANJUNATH PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. LAXMAMMA DEAD BY LRS.,
SMT.VISHALAMMA,
D/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT KOMMEGOWDANA KOPPALU,
BELIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 103.
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
2.
SMT.DEVAMMA
W/O CHIKKEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT MOODALAKOPPALU,
BELIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 103.
3.
SMT.PUTTAMMA
W/O DODDEGOWDA,
D/O NINGAMMA AND PUTTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O YEMMEKOPPALU VILLAGE,
BILIKERE HOBLI,
HUNSUR - 571 103.
4.
SMT. MAHADEVAMMA
W/O ESWAREGOWDA,
D/O DEVAMMA AND SEENEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O BHADREGOWDANAKOPPALU VILLAGE,
YELWALA HOBLI,
MYSURU - 571 103
5.
SMT. SHOBHA
W/O KUMAR,
D/O DEVAMMA AND SEENEGOWDA,
MAJOR
R/O KOMMEGOWDANAKOPPALU VILLAGE,
BILIKERE HOBLI,
HUNSUR - 571 103.
6.
SRI. SEENEGOWDA
S/O MARISIDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
HC-KAR
R/O BOLANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BILIKERE HOBLI,
HUNSUR - 571 103
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.06/2026 DATED 07.07.2026
VIDE ANNX-A IN FDP PROCEEDINGS NO. 4 /2019 OF O.S.NO.
25/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AT HUNSURU.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
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 writ petition is filed questioning the order passed on I.A. No.6 in F.D.P. No.4/2019 dated 07.07.2026 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur.
2. By the order impugned, the Trial Court has appointed the Court Commissioner, as sought by the Decree Holder. The Trial Court has observed that, pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 25/2011 dated 19.12.2018, she is entitled to a 1/15th share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, it is just and necessary to appoint the Additional Director of Land Records/Tahsildar, Hunsur Taluk, as the Court
HC-KAR
Commissioner to divide Items Nos. 1 to 14 of the suit schedule properties.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Executing Court has amended the decree, which is impermissible, and that the petitioners have questioned the amendment by filing R.F.A.No.513/2019. It is submitted that, pending the said appeal, the Trial Court cannot proceed with the matter.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. Pursuant to the judgment and decree, the Trial Court has appointed the Court Commissioner to divide the properties. According to the petitioners, the appeal is pending. In the pending appeal, there is no interim order staying the proceedings. However, the Trial Court has passed an interim order not to draw the final decree. In that view of the matter, the appointment of the Court Commissioner, as part of the other proceedings in the final decree proceedings, can proceed. The same would not come in the way of the interim order granted by the Court. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
HC-KAR
5. In light of the above discussion, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14