Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Vijaykumar A.Patil
Puttamma, Since Deceased By Her Lr's. – Appellant
Versus
Central Bank Of India Bangalore Branch By Its Agent – Respondent
ORDER :
Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.01.2018 passed on the memo dated 20.08.2016 filed by the respondent No.2(a) and 2(f) in Ex.P.No.2710/2015 by the XXXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard.
3. Sri.B.K.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed an execution petition seeking to execute the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2010 passed in O.S.No.14/1980 and in the said judgment at paragraph 20, the Court held that the suit schedule property is nothing but item No.5 mentioned in the written statement in O.S.No.12/1980 and the claim of the defendant No.2 in this suit i.e., O.S.No.12/1980 is rejected insofar as item No.5 of the written statement schedule property is concerned.
4. It is submitted that the petitioners filed O.S.No.12/1980 which came to be decreed vide judgment dated 21.03.1998 in favour of the petitioners and the legal heirs of the defendant No.2 filed appeal in RFA No.526/1998 which came to be partly allowed. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the suit schedule property i
The execution petition was properly dismissed by the court pending resolution of a related Supreme Court matter, upholding the principle of maintaining status quo in ongoing litigation.
Execution of an agreement concerning joint family property requires partition; unpartitioned property cannot be alienated without the agreement of all co-owners.
Subsequent events and judgments impacting property rights necessitate reconsideration of earlier orders in execution proceedings.
The executing court is bound to execute the decree as per its terms and cannot entertain frivolous objections that delay justice.
A mere objection to the execution of a decree does not entitle an objector to a full inquiry unless accompanied by prima facie evidence of independent title or possession.
The executing court cannot re-evaluate settled issues or entertain objections based on the merits of the original case; it must execute the decree as it stands.
An ex parte decree that is cryptic and non-compliant with procedural requirements cannot be executed; necessary amendments to parties and relief sought must be pursued to validate execution.
The court upheld the executing court's decision, affirming that the objector's property claims were distinct from the execution schedule property, validating the executing court's order rejecting the....
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
