Back
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
BASSAPPA S/O RANGAPPA – Appellant
Versus
V. SAMBIREDDY S/O V. ANJIREDDY – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
1.2. Pass such other orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition, in the interest of justice.
2. The respondent No. 3 had filed a suit in O.S. No. 89/2022 which came to be decreed and confirmed in R.A. No. 1/2008 and R.S.A. No. 70/2011 in furtherance of which, Execution Petition No. 32/2022 had been filed against respondent No. 2 seeking vacant possession of the suit schedule property.
3. A possession warrant having been issued on 21.03.2022, the Court bailiff sought to execute the same on 14.04.2022, the petitioner objected to the said execution of the decree and filed a suit in O.S. No. 9/2022 seeking for an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession. The said suit came to be transferred to the Ist Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Sindhanur, and renumbered as O.S. No. 258/2022, an
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 court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
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....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a bonafide purchaser, not being the decree holder and not having been dispossessed of the property, is not entitled to raise objections under ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a decree obtained by a tenant against a licensee can be executable against subsequent purchasers who are in possession without any lawful decr....
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.
A subsequent purchaser cannot assert rights against a prior decree holder, as established by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
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
