The court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity for an objector to establish their right, title, and interest in attached properties under Order XXI Rule 97 of C.P.C., and allowed the objectors to let-in relevant evidence to prove their exclusive ownership.

JUDGMENT :

B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Execution Case No.76 of 2013 out of which these appeals arise.

3. Succinctly stated, the facts are, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are decree holders. Late Venkatesh, husband of decree holder No.1 and father of decree holders No.2 to 4 had filed O.S. No.119 of 2009 seeking recovery of monies due to him. The said suit was later renumbered as O.S. No.86 of 2012. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 03.08.2013. Against which, judgment debtors No.2 and 3 have preferred R.F.A. No.1739 of 2013 before this Court which is pending adjudication. In the meanwhile, the decree holders initiated execution proceedings in Execution Case No.76 of 2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channapattana. In the execution petition, the decree holders filed schedule of properties which was sought to be attached and sold for the recovery of decretal amount.

4. It is the case of appellant herein who is the objector, who filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.') that, she is the owner and in possession of Item Nos.3 and 4 of the schedule properties. The appellant in R.F.A. No.78 of 2017 also filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of C.P.C. contending that under partition deed Item No.5 of the suit schedule property was allotted to him. In the circumstances, the applications were considered by the Executing Court and by order dated 14.12.2016 the said applications were dismissed. Being aggrieved, the objector have preferred R.F.A. No.66 of 2017 and R.F.A. No.78 of 2017. Since they arise out of the same Execution Case No.76 of 2013, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 decree holders and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in both the appeals and perused the material on record as well as I.A. No.1 of 2017 filed for additional documents.

6. Appellant's counsel contended that the Executing Court was not right in dismissing the applications filed by the appellant herein under Order XXI Rule 97 of C.P.C. That the appellants herein are the owners of the respective properties. They are not the judgment debtors, their properties have been erroneously included in the schedule to the Execution Petition and in order to execute the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.86 of 2012, their properties were sought to be attached. At that stage, apprehending the threat of attachment, the applications were filed. The Executing Court has observed that since the documents of title were not produced in evidence, no relief could be granted to them and the applications have been dismissed. He contended that although the documents of title were not produced before the Executing Court, nevertheless the Encumbrance Certificates were produced by both the appellants which have not been considered and appreciated in their proper perspective. In the circumstances, the appellants have filed I.A. No.1 of 2017 before this Court producing certified copy of the gift deed dated 22.10.2008 in respect of Item Nos.3 and 4 of the schedule properties which were gifted to the appellant in R.F.A. No.66 of 2017 by her husband respondent No.6 herein, who is also one of the judgment debtors. That the respondent decree holders could not have proceeded to attach Item Nos.3 and 4 which belong to the appellant herein for the purpose of executing the decree in their favour. He also contended that the appellant in R.F.A. No.78 of 2017, who claimed to be the owner of Item No.5 of the schedule properties has been allotted the said property under a registered partition deed dated 01.09.2008 and a copy of which is appended to the application filed under Orde