Karnataka High Court
WP/1300/2024 of SMT JAVARAMMA Vs SMT MAHADEVAMMA on 31 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010010582024 NC: 2026:KHC:47245 WP No. 1300 of 2024 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. 1300 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAVARAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT.
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. 1300 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. JAVARAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
SMT. PUTTAMMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
D/O LATE JAVARAMMA
R/AT HORALAVADI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
NANJANAGUD TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT -571 301
2.
SRI. BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O LATE JAVARAMMA
R/AT KOCHANAHALLI VILALGE
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK
AND DISTRICT -570 010
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LOKESHA D.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. MAHADEVAMMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
W/O LATE DODAMADA
R/AT KOCHANAHALLI VILALGE
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT- 570 010
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
2.
THE SECRETARY
KEB ENGINEER’S ASSOCIATION
ZONAL CENTER
MYSURU -570 001
3.
SRI. R. RAMAKRISHNA
MAJOR
S/O LATE T.S. RANGANNA
R/AT 1238, 11TH MAIN
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BENGALURU -560 086
4.
SRI. M.R.M. MOORTHY
MAJOR
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
CONSULTING ENGINEER
NO.53, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
BASAVESHWARA NAGARA
BENGALURU -560 079
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOVARDHAN S., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI.ROHIT URS D., ADVOCATE FOR R2
DEEMED SERVICE OF NOTICE IN R/O R3 V/O DATED
31.08.2026)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU IN EX. NO.
380/2014 ON IA NO. 2 TO 4 DATED 03/07/2023 VIDE
ANNEXURE-G
AND
MAY
BE
PLEASED
TO
ALLOW
THE
APPLICATIONS ON ITS FILE AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
HC-KAR
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
Aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.2 to 4 in Ex.No.380/2014 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Mysuru, the petitioners are before this Court.
2. The facts of the case are that respondent No.1/wife and the deceased decree holder No.2/mother of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Mysuru, seeking compensation for the death of Doddamada/husband of respondent No.1 herein. The claim petition was allowed, and compensation was awarded. Thereafter, respondent No.1/wife and decree holder No.2/mother filed Ex.No.380/2014. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, decree holder No.2/mother died on 08.01.2019. Thereafter, the petitioners herein, who are the brother and sister of the deceased employee, filed an application come on record as legal representatives of the deceased decree holder No.2. That application was rejected by the Executing Court.
HC-KAR
3. The Executing Court while rejecting the applications, observed that since the applicants are the daughter and son of the deceased DHR No.2, they are not Class I legal heirs. It was stated that the MFA is pending and that there is no stay order. The Executing Court further observed that, since the proposed applicants are the daughter and son of the deceased DHR No.2, they do not fall within for Class I legal heirs of the deceased DHR No.2, and accordingly, the Executing Court rejected the application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the son and daughter of the deceased decree holder No. 2. As such, they are Class I legal heirs, and the Executing Court wrongly rejected the application.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/wife submits that when the execution petition is filed seeking realisation of the compensation amount, and the mother is no longer alive, the petitioners, who are the husband's siblings, cannot claim the compensation amount. It is submitted that the Executing Court rightly dismissed the applications, and there
HC-KAR
are no grounds to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the Executing Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. The husband of respondent No.1 died, and both the decree holder No.2/mother and respondent No.1/wife have filed execution petition for the realization of the compensation amount. In a case of this nature, if the mother is no longer alive, the petitioners cannot be termed as legal heirs and are not entitled to any compensation. The Executing Court rightly rejected the applications. Hence, this Court is passing the following order:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
ii. The Executing Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43