Back
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
Tayamma @ Thippamma, W/o. Thippeswamy – Appellant
Versus
K. Ramappa S/o. Pampanna – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The question to be answered in this appeal is whether the appellants (referred to as ‘applicants’) could have filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’ for short) in the execution proceeding initiated by the respondent. This question is to be answered in the following factual background.
2. O.S. No. 45/2012, on the file of First Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Ballari, was a suit filed by the respondent for declaration of his title over four acres of land in Sy. No. 2 of the village Janekunte and, taluk and district Ballari (for short ‘suit property’). He also sought a direction to defendant nos.2 and 3 to disburse compensation amount to him in connection with acquisition of the said land. The first defendant in the suit was the brother of the applicants. The trial court decreed the suit declaring the respondent to be the owner of the suit property and that he was entitled to receive the compensation amount. The respondent initiated the suit on the premise that he purchased the suit property from Belaglappa under a registered sale deed dated 07.10.1998. For some reason the respondent could not get the revenue records mutated to his name and the n
A person claiming independent right, title or interest in the property can resist delivery of possession even by filing an objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in the executing court itself and if th....
A third party claiming under a judgment debtor cannot file an application under Order XXI Rule 97; they must file under Rule 99 instead.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Executing Court to adjudicate upon controversies between the parties in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 97....
Subsequent assignees cannot claim rights over property if the original sale is deemed void under Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Rule 97 read with Rule 101 of Order 21 post amendment wherein the executing court has to determine under Rule 101 Order 21 of the Code that the question raised has legally arisen between the parties ....
The executing court is competent to consider all questions raised by the persons offering obstruction against execution of the decree and pass appropriate order, which is to be treated as a decree. T....
The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
A judgment debtor cannot maintain an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC to resist possession, as their rights have already been adjudicated in the decree.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
