The Objector must provide sufficient documentary evidence to establish independent rights to joint family property; failure to do so results in dismissal of objections in execution proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri.Shankarappa, V, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Vinod Kumar B.N learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appeal is filed by the Objector, by name Sri.Saravana.G, son of Sri.Gunashekhar who had filed an application under Order XXI Rules 97, 101 and 103 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C vide I.A.No.9 in Execution Case No.1685/2003 which came to be dismissed after a thorough enquiry by order dated 06.12.2022.

3. The facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under;

A suit was filed in O.S.No.7918/2000 for specific enforcement of the contract of an agreement to sale, executed by father of the applicant in favour of the decree holder Sri.D.Raju. The suit was being contested and at that juncture, a compromise petition came to be filed. As per the terms of the compromise, the plaintiff has agreed to allow the defendants to pay back the amount that he has received as advance sale consideration till 07.09.2003, to handover vacant possession of the suit property, failing which the defendants agreed to handover the possession to the plaintiff and also execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominees.

4. Admittedly, the defendants therein failed to make the payment as agreed. Therefore, to execute the compromise decree, a case came to be filed in Execution Case No.1685/2003. In the execution petition, the Objector filed an application stating that the suit property is a joint family property and the Objector has got independent right over the suit property and his father did not possess any right, title to bind interest of the Objector and sought for adjudication of his claim on merits vide I.A.No.9.

5. Decree holder filed objections to I.A.No.9 denying the contentions urged on behalf of the Objector in toto.

6. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge held an enquiry. The Objector was examined as OW-1 and filed documents which were placed on record as Exs.O1 to O5. Against the same, the decree holder got examined himself as DW1 and placed on record 11 documents.

7. The learned Judge of the Execution Court, thereafter heard the parties in detail and noted that the contentions heard on behalf of the Objector that he is having an independent right over the suit property cannot be countenanced in law in the absence of any documentary evidence made available on record to establish that he is also having the right over the property. The documentary evidence placed on record by the decree holder as well as by the Objector were taken note of by the learned Trial Judge in the Execution case in paragraph numbers 14 and 15, which reads as under;

“14. The documents furnished by the decree-holder marked at Ex.D.3 makes it very clear that, one A.Palani lodged a complaint against the judgment- debtor No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and it was ended in conviction. Ex.D.4 makes it clear that, against the order of conviction, the judgment-debtor No.1 has preferred Criminal Appeal No.3/2004 and it came to be dismissed. Ex.D.5 shows that through the process of court this decree-holder got the Sale Deed in his favour in respect of petition schedule property on 26.02.2008.

15. The combined reading of Order XXI rule 97 and 101 makes it is very clear that, in a petition like this, this court is required to determine the right of Objector with respect to property in question. But for the reasons stated above, the Objector has miserably failed to prove any semblance of right, title or interest over the property in question.”

8. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge also took into consideration the principles of law laid down in the case of Yud