Point of law : Transfer of property - Possession is actual defacto possession and cannot be transacted based on the period mentioned in the lease. However, at the end, every relationship comes to an end when the possession of lease hold property come to an end and the possession of the same has been delivered back to the lessor.

JUDGMENT :

Though this matter is listed today for orders, the same is taken up for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case.

2. This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C., against order dated 06.08.2016 passed on I.A.Nos.7 to 11 in Ex.No.1863/2015 by the learned I Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-20).

3. In order to avoid confusion and over-lapping, parties are addressed in accordance with their ranks as stood before the executing Court and the other parties who come in the course of this judgment are addressed by their name.

4. This appeal is preferred by objector in execution proceedings No.1863/2015-M.Venkatachalam as his applications filed Under order 21 Rule 97 to 101 of CPC., in I.A.No.7 to 11 came to be dismissed by the learned Judge in the execution proceedings. The execution proceedings came into existence because of decreeing of the suit in O.S.No.2781/2001 filed by the decree holder (in the capacity of the plaintiff) Mr.Mukesh Gupta seeking for eviction of one Jabbar Travels and Abdul Gafoor who is stated to be representing Jabbar Travels as well.

5. The objector in this case claims possession of the schedule property which is stated to be commercial shop premises independently having acquired the same from M/s. Sri. Krishna Enterprises who is stated to be the owner of the schedule property.

6. M/s. Sri. Krishna Enterprises is stated to have leased out the schedule property to the plaintiff-Mukesh Guptha under a lease deed dated 26.02.1987 for a period of 26 years and two months. The objector claims that he is inducted into possession in his independent capacity without any parties.

7. In this connection Sri. A. Vijaya Sai, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned judge in the execution proceedings committed serious error and irregularity by relying on Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which covers doctrine of lis-Pendency. It is further submitted that the rights acquired by the objector for the possession of the property is subject to the disposal of the suit for eviction filed by Sri. Krishna Enterprises against Mukesh Gupta in O.S.No.6028/2016. Thus the decree holder cannot question the stay of the objector with the help of the decree which is stated to have been obtained in his favour in O.S.No.2781/2001. The learned counsel submits that the execution proceedings can be proceeded with only in respect of the decree passed on the subject matter directly involved between the parties or person claiming under them. Thus, independent possession of the objector can not be disturbed by the decree holder in execution proceedings No.1863/2015.

8. Sri. K.N.Shiva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that originally, the suit was filed by Mukesh Gupta against one Abdul Gafoor/defendant who is representing Jabbar Travels in respect of the schedule property. The said original suit came to be decreed on 25.06.2005 against which the said Abdul Gafoor/defendant in the said suit filed an application under Order XI Rule 13 of CPC seeking to set-aside the exparte decree against him in respect of the subject matter. The application in Miscellaneous No.6545/2015 for setting-aside the ex-parte decree filed by Abdul Gafoor came to be dismissed on 29.06.2015 against which he preferred Miscellaneous First Appeal No.5411/2015, which also came to be dismissed on 22.09.2015.

9. Thus the decree passed against Abdul Gafoor has become final and binding with the dismissal of the Miscellaneous First Appeal No.5411/2015. The learned counsel further submitted that, thereafter the said defendant/Abdul Gafoor/judgment debtor undertook before the executing court on 11.11.2015 to deliver the possession of the property to the decree holder on or before 01.04.2016, but he failed to do the same. In the meanwhile he filed another application on 31.04.2016 seeking for extension of time limit to vacate the s