1. RFA.No.592/2013 is preferred by the objectors, challenging the judgment and order dated 31.1.2013 passed in Execution No.411/2012, on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, C/C of XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH.No.8) dismissing the application filed by the objectors under Order XXI Rule 97 r/w. Section 151 of CPC, whereas RFA.No.352/2013 is preferred by the decree holder, challenging the very judgment and order in so far as the finding that the decree holder in order to seek delivery of physical possession of the schedule property, has to resort to under due process of law to evict the objectors from the schedule property and he can obtain symbolic delivery of possession of the schedule property and then resort to due process of law to evict objectors from the schedule property is concerned.

2. Brief facts are that appellants in RFA.No.592/2013 filed a suit in O.S.No.4694/2010 against the second respondent herein who claimed to be the son of Sri G.C. Narasaiah and the said Sri G.C. Narasiah, where-under an order of permanent injunction was sought for restraining the defendants therein from interfering from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed and the second respondent herein was restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs appellants herein except in accordance with due process of law. The second respondent herein claimed his right to the suit schedule property by virtue of the gift deed dated 14.6.2010 alleged to have been executed by his father. The stamp duty has not been properly paid in respect of the said gift deed and the respondent is not the son of the second defendant Narasaiah. Under such circumstances, the said document is a doubtful document. In order to defeat the rights of the appellants, second respondent has entered into an agreement of sale dated 21.1.2011 with the first respondent herein for a meager amount. The said transaction is a collusive transaction and in that behalf a suit came to be filed by the first respondent herein in O.S.No.8733/2011 for specific performance. Though there are disputes, a collusive compromise decree was passed in the said suit and subsequently execution petition came to be filed. The second respondent did not appear before the Court and as such, the sale deed was got executed through Court on 11.4.2012. As the said proceedings are collusive, they are not binding upon the appellants-objectors and admittedly the appellants-objectors are in actual and physical possession of the schedule property. As the appellants-objectors have not been arrayed as parties in the said suit, under such circumstances, delivery of possession of the property is illegal. It is further case of the appellants-objectors that appropriate proceedings have been initiated challenging the said gift deed. Under such circumstances, dispossessing of the appellants-objectors from the schedule property without giving any opportunity is not maintainable. The appellants-objectors came to know about the execution proceedings only on 2.7.2012 when Court Ameena had come to the premises to dispossess them. It is further stated that immediately after coming to know about the issuance of delivery warrant, they filed an application to advance the case from 1.8.2012 to 4.7.2012 which came to be allowed. They also filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 r/w. Section 151 of CPC as obstructers seeking to adjudicate their interest in the said execution. It is further stated that the Court below did not recall the delivery warrant and the case was posted for objections of the first respondent on 7.7.2012. When the Court below did not pass any order to recall the delivery warrant, a writ petition in WP.No.23140/2012 was filed and subsequently challenging the order of the trial Court rejecting the application for stay of the execution proceedings another writ petition in WP.No.2039/2013 was filed. This Court