Gujjal Raghavendra S/O. V.G. Hanumanthappa Vs K Gulam Rasool S/O. Basha Sab

GUJJAL RAGHAVENDRA S/O. V.G. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCCPATION: BUSINESSMAN, R/O. 33^RD WARD, NEAR UKKADAKERI GARADIMANI, HOSAPETE, TALUKA AND DISTRICT: VIJAYANAGARA-583203. (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶13

K. GULAM RASOOL S/O. BASHA SAB, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED PERSON, R/O. 5^TH CROSS, MAIN ROAD, DOOR NO.S-50, T.B. DAM, HOSAPETE, TALUKA: HOSAPETE, DISTRICT: VIJAYANAGARA-583203.

¶14

SMT. NIRMALADEVI W/O. LATE DHEERENDRA SWAMY, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. WARD NO.34, DEVANGAPETH, GOPAL NILAYAM, SHANKARAMMA TEMPLE, HOSAPETE, TALUK AND DISTRICT: VIJAYANAGARA-583203.

¶15

SRINIVAS S/O. LATE DHEERENDRA SWAMY, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. WARD NO.34, DEVANGAPETH,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

GOPAL NILAYAM, SHANKARAMMA TEMPLE, HOSAPETE,

¶20

TALUK AND DISTRICT: VIJAYANAGARA-583203.

¶21

SMT. GAYATHRI W/O. SRINATH D/O. LATE DHEERENDRA SWAMY, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. WARD NO.34, DEVANGAPETH, GOPAL NILAYAM, SHANKARAMMA TEMPLE, HOSAPETE,

¶22

TALUK AND DISTRICT: VIJAYANAGARA-583203.

¶23

G.S. SRIDHAR S/O. LATE G. BASALINGAPPA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSMAN, R/O. S.R. NAGARA, HOSAPETE, TALUK AND DISTRICT: VIJAYANAGARA-583203.

¶24

SYED THABREJ KHADRI S/O. SYED KHADRI, AGE: 50 YEARS, R/O. 16^TH WARD, BASAVESAWARA BADAVANE, HOSAPETE, VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT. AMENDMENT CARRIED AS PER ORDER DATED 04.09.2025.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. HARSHA DESAI &

¶27

SRI. MAQBOOLAHAMED M. PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR R5; SRI. SHIVARAJ BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R6; NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 04.09.2025)

¶28

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.28/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.07.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.XVI BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE, IN E.P. NO.28/2020 IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶35

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of all parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶36

This appeal by the applicant in I.A.No.16 in Execution Case No.28/2020 is directed against the impugned orders dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete¹ , whereby the said application filed by the appellant – applicant in I.A.No.16 was dismissed by the Executing Court.

¶37

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under.

¶38

Respondent No.1 - Decree Holder instituted a suit in O.S.No.64/2012 against one Sri Dheerendra Swamy for recovery

¶39

1 Hereinafter referred to as “the Executing Court” for short

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

of a sum of ₹40,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of

¶43

12% per annum and for other reliefs.

¶44

It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the aforesaid Dheerendra Swamy expired and respondent No.2 to 4 are his legal heirs and legal representatives. After contest, the said suit came to be decreed in favour of respondent No.1 - Decree Holder against respondent No.2 to 4 vide judgment and decree dated 01.10.2018. The operative portion of the said judgment and decree reads as under:

¶45

“ORDER

¶46

The suit of plaintiff is hereby decreed in part with cost.

¶47

The plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.40,00,000/- with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from defendants from the date of suit till realization. The liability of Defendant No.1(a) to (c) shall be to the extent of estate and properties succeeded by them from deceased original defendant Dheerendra Swamy.

¶48

Draw decree accordingly.”

¶49

It is also an undisputed fact that the aforesaid judgment and decree directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to pay a sum of ₹40,00,000/- together with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization and further

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

directing that the liability of respondent Nos.2 to 4, shall be to the extent of estate and properties succeeded to by them from the deceased Dheerendra Swamy, has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶53

Subsequently respondent No.1 – Decree Holder instituted the instant execution proceedings in Execution Case No.28/2020 against respondent Nos.2 to 4 seeking execution and implementation of the aforesaid judgment and decree passed in his favour against respondent Nos.2 to 4. In the said execution proceedings, respondent No.1 sought for attachment of converted property bearing Sy.No.134/B4/B2 measuring 3 acres 38 cents² . Pursuant to which, the Executing Court passed an order dated 11.01.2021 attaching the said execution schedule property. Thereafter, the Executing Court brought the aforesaid execution schedule property to sale and the same was purchased by respondent No.5 vide auction sale dated 25.10.2021 . Meanwhile, respondent No.6, Syed Thabrej Khadri claiming to be the owner of agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.134-B4/B3, measuring 12 cents and Sy.No.134-B4/B1 measuring 16 cents,

¶54

2 Hereinafter referred to as “the execution schedule property”

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

filed an application in I.A.No.7 dated 15.12.2021 under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908³ seeking adjudication of his right over the aforesaid properties to an extent of 28 cents. The Executing Court directed enquiry to be conducted in the said matter on the said application and both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence culminating in an order dated 21.12.2023, which reads as under:

¶58

”ORDERS ON IA NO.VII

¶59

The Learned counsel for the 3rd party viz Sayed Tabrez Khadri has filed IA No. VII under Order XXI Rule 58 r/w Sec.151 of CPC seeking to set aside the sale of the suit schedule property.

¶60

2 In the affidavit, the 3rd party Syed Tabriz Khadri contended that, the decree holder has filed a recovery petition against the JDR’s and sought for auction of the property bearing No.134/*/ B4/ B/2 measuring 3 acres 38 guntas situated at Hosapete taluk and Hospet standing in the name of deceased JDR Y. K. Dheerendra Swamy.

¶61

2i. He stated that originally property bearing survey No.134/B4 measuring 3.66 acres situated at Hosapete belongs to one Gosi Parappa, out of the said extent the Government has acquired 3.50 acres of land and remaining of 0.16 cents was sold to one Banderangappa under the registered sale deed dated 19-09-2008. Thereafter said Bande Rangappa got

¶62

3 Hereinafter referred to as “the CPC” for short

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

mutated his name to the land and has been in possession of the same. Later said Bande Rangappa sold the said land to him under registered sale deed dated 31-03- 2012 and on the basis of the said sale deed the records of rights mutated in his name.

¶66

2ii. Further submitted that, in the mean while decree holder instead of getting the auction the Survey No. 134/B4/B2 measuring 3 acres 38 cents has wrongly put his land for the auction of his land to the extent of 0.16 cents. Therefore prays to allow the application and set aside or stop the sale proceedings.

¶67

3. Per contra decree holder has filed objections on behalf the decree holder on IA No. VII stating that the petition filed by the applicant 3rd party is false and vexatious and not maintainable either in law or in facts.

¶68

3i. It is submitted that the applicant 3rdparty is stranger to the execution petition schedule property and he is well known about the proceedings of the case. Further, that on 18-11-2021 the present applicant/ 3rdparty has filed a zerox copies of the ROR in respect of survey no.134 /B4/B measuring 0.12 cents and 0.16 cents respectively along with one sketch and objections through one Kari Hanumantahappa and same has been rejected on the same day itself. At the time of first spot sale conducted by the court Ameen Sri. Nageshwar Rao, he objected and obstructed the work because the applicant is well known of the proceedings. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶69

3ii. Further submitted that the property shown in the present case is in the respect of Survey No. 134/B4/B2 to the extent of 3.38 acres standing in the name of Late Y. K. Dheerendra Swamy and the decree

¶70

8 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

holder has produced the ROR , encumbrance certificate along with photo showing the remaining property in the above said survey Number.

¶74

4. The present applicant has produced the document in respect of Survey No. 134/B4/B paiki measuring 0.06 cents which is excess in measurement than of the present execution petition schedule property and the present applicant has purchased the property from Bande Rangappa S/o Shankrappa. Hosapete through registered sale deed dated 31-032012 which is different from the execution petition schedule property. Further submitted that the documents produced by the applicant 3rd party and the documents produced by the decree holder is entirely different and is no where concerned to the petition schedule property which is attached and put for sale. Therefore prayed the court to dismiss the petition a filed by the applicant with a exemplary cost.

¶75

5. In order to prove their contention, the 3rd party applicant has adduced the evidence as PW-1 and got marked 19 documents and 1 witness as PW-2 . On the other hand the decree holders have only produced documents and he has submitted that he has no evidence.

¶76

6. Heard and perused the materials on record.

¶77

7. The point would arise for my consideration is as under;

¶78

1. Whether the 3rd party /applicant has made out a ground to set aside the or stop the sale proceedings ?

¶79

2. What order?

¶80

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

8. My findings on the above point is as follows;

¶83

Point No.1: In the negative

¶84

Point No.2: As per the final order for the following;

¶85

9. POINT NO.1: The Decree holder has filed the present petition for recovery of amount against the JDR . As the decree holder has failed to repay the decretal amount the decree holder has filed an application for an attachment of the petition property bearing survey No. 134/B4/B2 measuring 3.38 acres situated at Hosapete. Consequently, the court has allowed the application and also ordered for an attachment of the property . Accordingly the court has issued the sale proclamation and to hold the auction of the attached property fixing the spot sale on 08-09-2021 and court sale on dated: 15-092021. After executing proclamation of the sale of the attached property, the spot sale was conducted and the court bailiff submitted the report of auction of the property in question at the spot on 08-09-2021 and as per the report of the bailiff Khaza Hussain Niyazi and G. Sridhar were participated in the bid and Khaja Hussain Niyazi offered a bid amount of Rs.97,50,000/- which is highest bid for the property and accordingly the bailiff filed a report along with records. Thereafter the court has ordered for auction of the attached property at the court to offer their Bid to attached their property. Khaja Hussain Niyazi offered a bid of Rs.97,50,000/-. The court bailiff called the bidders to offer their bid price. As nobody appeared, the bid of Rs. 97,50,000/- by Khaja Hussain Niyazi for petition property was accepted. The successful bidder was directed to deposit 25 % of bid amount of Rs. 24,37,500/-. But the Successful bidder has not deposited 25% in the court.

¶86

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Again the DHR got issued the sale proclamation and sale warrant for auctioning the attached property again. The court had fixed the date for the spot sale on 11-11-2021 and the court sale on 18-11-2021. On 18-11-2010 the bailiff filed a report of effecting the auction of property wherein Sri. G. Sreedhar said to have offered highest bid of Rs. 90,50.000/- to the attached property. In the court auction S.Vishwanath Shetty and Abdul Vahid had also offered bids but finally , said G. Sreedhar has offered the highest bid for Rs. 91,60,000 /-and same was accepted.

¶89

10. In the mean while one Kari Hanumanthappa appeared before the court and objected for the sale of the property on the ground that the attached property was wrongly identified and produced the photo stat copy of RTC extracts and sketch. The court having observed that as per the RTC extract, one Syed Tabriz Khadri is the owner of the property to SY. No.134/B4/B3 measuring 12 cents and Sy.No.134 B4/B1 measuring 16 cents whereas the property auctioned at the spot and court is property bearing Sy.No.134/B4/B2 measuring 3 acres 38 cents of land standing in the name of Y.K. Dheerendra Swamy and hence the properties objected for sale by Syed Khadri is different from the auctioned property and rejected the objections raised by the Kari Hanumanthappa and ordered for the successful bidder to deposit the balance amount within 15 days and accordingly also deposited the same. Thereafter Sayyed Tabrez Khadri has also filed application U/o 21 Rule 58 R/w sec 151 of CPC. claiming his right over the property.

¶90

11. In order to prove his contention, applicant examined himself as PW-1 reiterating the facts

¶91

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

stated in the application. He stated that the decree holder is trying to get auction the sale of the property standing in the name of deceased JDR Y. K. Dheerendra swamy bearing land Sy.No.134/B/B2 measuring 3 Acres 38 Cents and trying to recover the amount due to him. He stated that the land bearing Sy.No.134/B4 measuring 3 Acres 66 Cents situated at Hosapete belongs to original owner Gosi Parappa. Out of the said land, 3 Acres 50 Cents land was acquired by the Government and Bande Rangappa had purchased 0.16 cents through Registered Sale Deed dated 19-08- 2008 and delivered the possession of the same. Thereafter the said Bande Rangappa had changed the mutation in his name and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and thereafter on 31- 032012 he has purchased the same under Registered Sale Deed from Bande Rangappa and has been possession in the same and got mutated his name.

¶94

12. He has also stated that the he has purchased 0.12 cents of land bearing Sy.No 134 B4/B2 from Dheerendra Swamy and he has been in possession of the 28 cents. But the decree holder sought for the auction of sale of the property bearing Sy.No.134 B4/B2 along with waste goods measuring East-West 150 ft. North-South 150 ft. without mentioning the door number and assessment number and boundaries shown are in correct and the sketch produced by the all are incorrect and are not issued by the A.D.L.R. He spoken that, he is in possession of the Sy.No.134/B4/B1 measuring 60 cents but the Dhr by furnishing the wrong boundaries has sought for the auction sale of his property.

¶95

In support of his contention he relied on the, the Sale Deed dated 19.09.2008 wherein it shows

¶96

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

that, one Gosi Parappa has sold 16 cents of land in Sy.No.134/B4/B paiki to one Bande Rangappa under Registered Sale Deed for Rs.4,00,000/on 19.09.2008. Wherein the boundary to the East shown as remaining land of same survey number, to the West shown as remaining land of same survey number, to the North Sy.No.133, and to the South shown as remaining land of same survey number. Ex.P.2 Sale deed executed by the Bande Rangappa in favour of Syed Tabriz Khadri dated 31.03.2012 wherein the boundary shown to the East-as the land of Gosi Parappa of said survey, to the West- as the land of Gosi Parappa of said survey, to the NorthRoad, to the South- as the land of Gosi Parappa of said survey. It is also shown in the said sale deed as out of 3 Acres 66 Cents land, 3 Acres 50 cents acquired by Government and remaining 16 cents is given to the Syed Tabriz Khadri. He has also produced the 11E Sketch of Sy.No.134/B4/B. Ex.P.4 is the M.R.No.H-33 wherein the land to the extent of 0.16 cents in land Sy.No.134//B4/B was mutated in the name of present applicant Syed Khadari from Bande Rangappa and 134//B4/B2 stands in the name of Y.K.Derendra Swamy. He also produced the RTC pertaining to 13//B4B/1 of standing in the name of Syed Khadri as per M.R.No.H.33 as per Ex.P.5. He also produced Ex.P.6 E.C. inresepct of land Sy.No.1343//B4/B paiki measuring 16 cents wherein it is shown that land was transferred to Gosi parasapp to Bande Basappa. He also produced memorandum of letter of Tahsildhar dated 17.01.2012 as per Ex.P.7 wherein he sought for permission to construct wall to the landed property. Ex.P.8 is the sale deed inresepct of Sy.No.134/*/B4/B2 paiki measuring 12 cents executed in favour of Syed Khadari by Deerendra Swamy/Jdr. He also produced ROR bearing

¶99

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

Sy.No.134/B4/B3 standing in the name of Syed Khadhari to the extent of 0.12 cents as per Ex.P.9. Ex.P.10 is the 11 E sketch. Ex.P.11 is the MR No.H4 wherein the land to the extent of 3.38 acres shown to the Sy.No.134/*/B4/B2 stands in the name of Dheerendra Swamy. Land to the extent of 12 cents in land Sy.No.134/B4/B3 in the name of Syed Tabrej Khadari. He also produced the memorandum of letter issued by the HUDA Commissioner for providing combined map and also NOC issued by HUDA for giving to convert the land into non agricultural land as per Exs.P.12 and P.13. He also produced three sketches inresepct of Surveyor inresepct of Sy.No.134/B4/B3 on 18.09.2021, Sy.No.134/B4/B1 on 18.09.2021 and Sy.No.134/B4/B2 on 24.11.2021 as per Exs.P.14 to P.16. The Endorsement issued the A.D.L.R. on 09.03.2022 as per Ex.P.17. The Application given on 27.06.2022 as per Ex.P.18. The Endorsement issued by A.D.L.R. on 27.06.2022 as per Ex.P.19.

¶102

13. He was cross examined by the learned counsel for the Dhr . In the cross examination he pleaded ignorance as to the extent in resepct of the property Sy.No.134/B4/B2. Though he admitted that on 24.07.2013 he has purchased 12 cents from Dhreendra Seamy on Sy.No.134/B4/B2 and the Khatha has changed in his name. He stated that, the land to the extent of 16 cents in Sy.No.134/B4/B1, he purchased has the boundaries towards North and West as Road, and towards the South-Land belongs to him and he stated that he does not remember the boundary towards the East. He admits that, said land sold to him was registered as 134/B4/B1.

¶103

13i. When the counsel has confronted ROR bearing Sy.No.134/B4/B3 measuring 12 cents, he

¶104

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

admits that it belongs to him. He admits that the boundaries shown in the Ex.P.1, P.2 and P.8 are different from that of the boundaries shown in the schedule property. He failed to say that, towards which side the property he purchased and the suit property is situated. But, he admits that, the schedule property is different and the property he purchased is different one. He pleaded ignorance that Jdr was the owner of the 3 acres 38 cents of land, but he admits that the houses were constructed in the land acquired by the Government excluding the E.P. schedule property of 3 acres of 38 cents. He admits that on 18.11.2021 after conducting of Court sale one Kari Hanumanthappa has objected to the sale through him by filing documents. But he pleaded ignorance that the court rejected his application holding that the E.P. Scheudle property is different from the property one which he placed.

¶107

14. He also examined one Manjesh A.D.L.R. as PW.2. During his examination he stated that the present objector Khadari has given application along with one Sketch seeking that whether the said Sketch is issued by the office and has given the endorsement as per Ex.P.18 stating that the Sketch was not issued by the A.D.L.R. Office. He stated that there were three hissas in Sy.No.134/B4/B i.e. Sy.No.134/B4/B1, Sy.No.134/B4/B2 and Sy.No.134/B4/B3. He was cross examined by the learned counsel for Dhr. He stated that Exs.P.14 to P.16 are issued by Surveyor. On the application of one Advocate G.N.Nagaraj he has issued endorsement as per Ex.P.17 and P.18. When questioned how endorsement came to be issued on the same day, when the application is filed on the said day, he stated that he received calls from several times to issue endorsement as the

¶108

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

application is moved for the same. But he stated that as there was pressure he has issued on the same day. When the Challan was shown for issuing the Map of the E.P. property that the son of the Dhr has also applied for it, he stated that he has to verify the same. When the question was posed him that, was any action take against the person who had issued the Map given under the reference for which he stated, he did not take action as he did not know the person who has issued it.

¶111

15. On going through the contention of both sides it is apparent that the applicant/objector has purchased the property in Sy.No.134/B4/B from one Bande Rangappa to the extent of 0.16 cents but same was given the Sy.No.134/B4/B1. It is noticed that he has also purchased 0.12 cents in the land bearing Sy.No134/B4/B belonging to the Jdr Dhreendra Swamy, which was having the total extent of 3 acres 50 cents. On going through the M.R. H.4 and H.33 which are marked at Ex. P.3 and 4 they clearly go to show that the land purchased by the objector from the Dhreendra Swamy was given as Sy.No. 134/B4/B3 measuring 12 cents and the land of Dhreendra Swamy standing to the extent of 3 acres 38 cents whereas the land purchased by him from Bande Rangappa is shown as Sy.No.134/B4/B1.

¶112

16. As far as boundaries is concerned the E.P. property is shown to the extent of 3 acres 38 cens belonging to the jdr in Sy.No.1343/B4/B2 having the boundaries towards East- mechnical shop and open space, towards West-Residential houses, towards North � Hosapete-Ballari Road, towards SouthResidential houses. But the said boundaries do not find to the boundaries of the land purchased by the present objector Khadri. Moreover, the land which

¶113

16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

was put for auction sale is Sy.No.134/B4/B2 whereas the land belonging to the present objector is the Sy.No.134/B4/B1 and Sy.No.134/B4/B3. During the course of cross examination the objector PW.1 Sayed Khadhari clearly admitted that the E.P. property is different from the property, he has purchased. So it is clear that the E.P. schedule property not belongs to the objector. Hence, it is held that, the objector has no title over the E.P. schedule property. Accordingly, I answered the Point No.1 in the negative.

¶116

17 . POINT NO.2: For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

¶117

I.A.No.VII filed by 3rd party/objector under Order XXI Rule 58 r/w Sec.151 of CPC is hereby rejected with costs.”

¶118

Meanwhile during the pendency of the aforesaid I.A.No.7 filed by respondent No.6 dated 15.12.2021, respondent No.6 sold 16 cents of land in the aforesaid two properties, which were the subject matter of I.A.No.7, in favour of the appellant herein vide registered sale deed dated 24.07.2023. As stated supra, the said sale of 16 cents by respondent No.6 in favour of the appellant was done during the pendency of I.A.No.7, which was ultimately dismissed by the Executing Court vide final order dated 21.12.2023. It is also a matter of record and undisputed

¶119

17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

fact that the aforesaid order dated 21.12.2023 rejecting I.A.No.7 filed by respondent No.6 has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon respondent No.6.

¶122

Subsequently, the sale certificate dated 01.04.2024 was issued and executed in favour of respondent No.5 and the sum of ₹1,03,68,488/- was paid in favour of respondent No.1/decree holder towards the decree obtained by him against respondent Nos.2 to 4. Subsequently, the appellant herein filed the instant I.A.No.16 under Order XXI Rule 97, 101 and 104 of CPC seeking adjudication of his alleged rights over the execution schedule property on the ground that he had independent title, interest and possession over the said property. The said application having been opposed by the auction purchaser, who also filed an application I.A.No.15 under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned common order dismissing I.A.No.16 and allowing I.A.No.15 filed by respondent No.5/auction purchaser. Aggrieved by the impugned common order insofar as it relates to dismissal of I.A.No.16 filed by him, the appellant-third party objector is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶123

18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶124

HC-KAR

¶125

Perusal of the material on record including the impugned order as well as the aforesaid order dated 21.02.2023 passed on I.A.No.7 by the Executing Court will indicate that the Executing Court had recorded a finding that the property claimed by respondent No.6/Syed Tabhrej Khadri was different from the execution schedule property and accordingly proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the aforesaid Syed Tabhrej Khadri. It follows therefrom that the appellant herein, who claims right, title, interest and possession over his alleged 16 cents through respondent No.6, cannot claim to have any better right over the aforesaid property purchased by him, which was part and parcel of 28 cents, which was the subject matter of I.ANo.7 filed by respondent No.6.

¶126

In fact, the Executing Court records a categorical finding that the property to an extent of 28 cents claimed by respondent No.6 was different from the execution schedule property measuring 3 acres 38 cents sold in favour of respondent No.5/auction purchaser. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Executing Court was fully justified in dismissing the application filed by the appellant herein

¶127

19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11719-DB RFA No. 100398 of 2025

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

by placing reliance upon its earlier order passed on I.A.No.7 dated 21.05.2023, which had attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon all the parties including respondent No.4 and respondent No.6. It is therefore clear that the impugned order passed by the Executing Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal. However, liberty is reserved in favour of all parties to take recourse to such appropriate remedies as available in law including instituting appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court/forum, subject to all just exceptions, which shall be decided in accordance with law. In the result, appeal is hereby disposed of without interference.

¶130

All rival contentions between the parties are left open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival credentials.

¶131

The Executing Court is directed to conclude the execution proceedings in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶132