Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1075
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.
SMT. N. Vijayalakshmi D/O Sri N.T.Narayan – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Poornima Rajani W/O Sri Srinivasa Murthy K.G. – Respondent
RFA No. 2029 of 2025
Decided On : 11-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI R.B. SADASIVAPPA
For the Respondent: SRI PRASANNA V.R., AND SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI K.,
The court confirmed that an obstruction application can be dismissed when the claimant fails to prove independent rights or rightful possession, especially if collusion is apparent.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI Rules 97, 99, and 101; Fraudulent decree - Execution - The appellant's obstruction application was dismissed, affirming the decree's validity from O.S. No. 8083/2011; the appellant failed to show independent rights or lawful possession. (Paras 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17)
(B) Collusion - The court observed the appellant's contradictory claims regarding tenancy and possession, undermining her credibility and suggesting collusion with her husband to obstruct the decree. (Paras 6, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellant objected to an execution decree in favor of the landlord against her husband, claiming independent possession through a lease and agreement of sale. The trial court dismissed her claims, supporting the landlord's right to execute eviction.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the appellant’s claims not credible and dismissed her obstruction.
Issues: Whether the appellant proved independent possession and whether the decree was binding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no merit in the appellant's claims due to her participation in related proceedings and lack of independent rights, concluding that her obstruction was collusive.
Result: Appeal dismissed with directions for the execution court to proceed expeditiously.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basic facts of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's analysis on the validity of decrees and execution. (Para 3 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. appellant's claims and arguments regarding fraudulent decree. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. respondent's defense against appellant's claims. (Para 6) |
| 5. court's observations on appellant's actions in previous proceedings. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. court's decision on appellant's inconsistent claims. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. implications of appellant's failure to prove independent rights. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
ORAL JUDGMENT :
The present regular first appeal is filed by the objector against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2025 passed by the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16) in Ex.P. No.2767/2013 connected with O.S. No.7055/2013 and O.S. No.4833/2013. By the impugned judgment and decree, the objector’s application under Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 read with 151 CPC came to be dismissed.
2. Brief facts:
Execution petition originates from O.S. No.8083/2011, where Poornima Rajani (landlord/decree holder) sued Srinivas N (tenant/judgment debtor) for ejectment, arrears of rent and possession. On 05.07.2013, the Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the arrears of rent of Rs.2,12,500/- from June 2010 to October 2011 to be payable by the tenant N. Srinivas and mesne profits of Rs.12,500/- per month from November 2011 until delivery of possession. The said judgment and decree has attained finality. The execution proceedings were filed in Ex. P. No.2767/2013. During the execution, the wife of the judgment debtor (appellant), claiming independent possession under the lease deed dated 19.12.2008 and an agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009, filed O.S. No.7055/2013 seeking declaration and injunction that the decree in O.S. No.8083/2011 is not binding on her. O.S. No.4833/2013 was instituted for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 20.04.2009 against the alleged landlord Poornima Rajani (decree holder). All the three matters were clubbed and tried together.
3. By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court held that the appellant-plaintiff is not entitled for declaration that the decree in O.S. No.8083/2011 is not binding upon her and held that it is valid and binding, as Vijayalakshmi (appellant) was aware and even represented her husband. Further, O.S. No.4833/2013 seeking specific performance was dismissed as barred by limitation since the agreement was of the year 2009 and the suit was filed in the year 2013, the trial Court also dismissed the suit on merits on the ground that the agreement of sale was fabricated. Ex. P.No.2767/2013 was allowed. The obstruction petition was rejected. It was held that the decree holder is entitled to proceed with the eviction of the judgment debtor and his family, and by the impugned judgment and decree held that the landlord is entitled to enforce the decree of eviction in O.S. No.8083/2011.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Executing Court has failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence on record while rejecting the application of the objector. The following grounds are urged:
i. It is contended that the decree in O.S. No.8083/ 2011 is a fraudulent decree, inasmuch as the defendant/the judgment debtor was never a tenant of the premises.
ii. No material was placed before the trial Court in O.S. No.8083/2011 to establish the existence of a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
iii. The decree came to be passed ex parte, as the defendant deliberately remained absent, thereby causing hardship to the present appellant/objector, who is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule premises along with her two sons.
iv. The appellant placed reliance on the lease deed executed by the decree holder in her favour, under which a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- was paid to the decree holder, and which amount is reflected in the subsequent agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009 and that these documents in
