The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the regular first appeal filed by a third party objector who sought to be brought on record to protect possession, declining admission as the remedy lay against the opposite party.
Appeal dismissed; admission of appeal declined.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:35945 RFA No.734 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.734 OF 2019 (EX)
BETWEEN:
B. NARAYANASWAMY S/O CHIKKA BYANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
PARTNER OF
Digitally signed by MALATESH K C
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M/S. VINDHYA ENTERPRISES NO.12, VIJAYA VILAS GELEYARA BALAGA MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU-560 086.
(BY SRI. RAGHU HULIKAL, ADV.,)
…APPELLANT
AND:
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS FLAT NO.005, GOLDEN NEST APARTMENTS ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 030.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.J. ALVA, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. DR. K.N. VENKATESH, ADV., FOR R2)
NC: 2024:KHC:35945 RFA No.734 of 2019
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN EX.NO.1137/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 97 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Raghu Hulikal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.M.J.Alva, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
To execute the final decree that has been passed in FDP No.114/2008, an execution petition came to be filed in Ex. Case No.1137/2015 by the decree holder. Applicant by name B.Narayanaswamy, claiming to be the representative of M/s. Vindhya Enterprises, filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking permission of the Executing Court to come on record as an objector so as to
NC: 2024:KHC:35945 RFA No.734 of 2019
enable him to protect his physical possession over the part of the decreetal property measuring 950 sq. ft. mentioned and demarcated in the sketch of the final decree passed in FDP No.114/2008 on 07.02.2015.
NC: 2024:KHC:35945 RFA No.734 of 2019
plaintiff in the original suit. In other words, the answer of PW1 in his cross-examination would go to show that the property of the applicant has fallen to the share of the defendant who is said to have executed a joint development agreement with M/s. Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd., who in turn sold the property of the applicant to M/s. Vindhya Enterprises.
NC: 2024:KHC:35945 RFA No.734 of 2019
the decree holder in the execution proceedings and the property that has been allotted of the applicant is to the defendant whose interest has culminated in M/s. Salarpuria Properties Pvt. Ltd. who in turn sold the property in favour of M/s. Vindhya Enterprises.
ORDER
(i) Admission declined.
(ii) Appeal dismissed .
(iii) No order as to costs.
(iv) Pending applications are consigned to record.
Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal against the dismissal of an objector's application under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 CPC should be admitted.
Whether the admitted fact that the property was not allotted to the decree holder justifies admitting the appeal.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
B. NARAYANASWAMY
C. SATHYANARAYANA
A.B. SURYA
V. SRISHANANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
