( 1 ) THE appeal is filed against the order passed on la. No. I in ex. case No. 3299 of 1996 on the file of 2nd additional small cause judge, Bangalore. The appellant is the objector in the execution case filed an application under order 21, Rule 98 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Rule 35 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act objecting the execution of the delivery warrant in respect of the petition property.

( 2 ) THE background of the case leading to the present appeal are stated thus: the appellant is the daughter of one ramaiah setty. The said ramaiah setty had a wife by name padmavathamma. According to the appellant the petition property was gifted to her orally by her father for arisina kunkuma. Ramaiah setty had no male heirs and he died in the year 1972. By virtue of the said oral gift, the appellant claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the property. Further it was contended before the trial court in the application that one subbaiah setty was inducted as a tenant by the appellant and he vacated the premises. Thereafter, appellant is in continued possession and enjoyment of the petition property.

( 3 ) THE first respondent in the appeal claims that the petition property was gifted by registered deed in favour of his wife padmavathamma from whom the first respondent purchased the property under registered sale deed. After the purchase of the property, it is said that the tenancy in favour of subbaiah setty was attorned in favour of the first respondent and he filed h. r. c. Case in 1479 of 1993 seeking eviction of subbaiah setty who is the 2nd respondent. The petition came to be allowed directing the eviction of the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to the said Order, the present execution proceedings are initiated securing the eviction and delivery of possession.

( 4 ) THE appellant objected to the delivery proceedings contending that the petition property belongs to her and she has acquired ownership rights in the petition property by way of oral gift given by her father towards arisina kunkuma, that apart contends that the respondent 2 has never been in possession of the property and without reference to her making some false allegations h. r. c. Proceedings were instituted against respondent 2 and on the basis of the order obtained under the said proceedings the execution is being taken out. Therefore, she contends that her possession being lawful and valid, she cannot be disturbed and the order of eviction granted does not bind her.

( 5 ) FROM the records it also discloses the first respondent had filed the suit o. s. No. 656 of 1977 on the file of the civil judge, Bangalore, later on renumbered as o. s. No. 1845 of 1980 against the husband of the appellant seeking declaration and possession of the petition property. It is said that a decree has been granted in the suit in favour of the first respondent herein. However, the execution is not taken out. On the strength of the said facts, the counsel for the appellant contended that it clearly indicates from the proceedings that the possession and enjoyment of the suit property is with the appellant and therefore, the order of eviction made in h. r. c. Case without reference to the appellant is invalid and not binding on her.

( 6 ) IN the earlier suit filed by the respondent herein, the husband of the appellant had also set up a plea of oral gift towards arisina kunkuma in favour of the appellant. The said claim was rejected, as untenable. However, any finding given on the rights of the appellant in the proceedings to which she is not a party may not be binding on her as she was not a party in the said proceedings and merely because her husband had set up the plea of title of the appellant would not in any way affect her claim to espouse her right independently in separate proceedings.

( 7 ) HOWEVER, the plea of title set up by the appellant in the petition property does not appear to be tenable and acceptable in law. The property n