High CourtsSingle Bench(1995) 03 KAR CK 0031

Triyambak Venkatesh Hebsur vs Dharmaraddi Fakiraddi Khyadad

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 27 March 1995 · Citation: AIR 1996 Kar 92 : (1995) ILR (Kar) 1816 : (1995) 5 KarLJ 132

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.B. Vishwanath, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision Petition No. 3426 of 1992

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 385 words
1.

In this revision petition, the J.Dr. has challenged the order passed by the learned Munsiff, Navalgund on 12-8-1992 in Execution Case No. 26/79. What the learned Munsiff has done in this order is he has ordered issue of attachment warrant to the extent of 10 acres of land in R.S. 33/2 of Gudisagar Village to realise the decree amount.

2.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner produced today with memo a copy of the decree passed in O.S. No. 72/70, out of which Execution Case No. 26/79 arose. The decree mentions that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 8,000/- with costs and interest. Nowhere in the decree has it been stated what is the interest. But the execution has been levied for recovery of the amount with interest at 12%. Since the decree does not mention what is the rate of interest allowed (decree was a consent decree), I reduce the interest allowable to the decree-holder from 12% to 6% per annum.

3.

The next important point for consideration in this revision is, whether the learned Munsiff was right in ordering issue of attachment warrant to the extent of 10 acres to realise Rs. 8,000/- with interest and court costs etc.

4.

Law in this regard has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Ambati Narasayya Vs. M. Subba Rao and another, that only such portion of the property as would satisfy the decree amount should be sold. The Supreme Court has been pleased to say that tendency of plaintiff to sell the entire property should not be encouraged.

5.

Bearing the law laid down by the Supreme Court in mind, I pass the following :

ORDER

The learned Munsiff shall fix from what extent of property the decree amount is realisable bearing in mind the market value of the property and then bring the property to sale.

Interest allowed at 6%.

Both the parties shall state what is the price of the property through memos. It is made clear that, after taking into consideration the price stated by the parties, the learned Munsiff shall fix from what extent of property the decree amount could be realised and that part of the property shall be brought to sale.

6.

With these modifications, the revision petition is disposed of.

7.

Order accordingly.