Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Gopalkrishna S. Bakale S/o Sunderlal Bakale – Appellant
Versus
Ganapathi C. Bakale – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. maintainability of appeal confirmed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts supporting possession and eviction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. objectors' claims addressed. (Para 6) |
| 4. arguments from both parties regarding rights. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. detailed analysis of trial court's findings. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. objectors' burden to prove title. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. finality of findings in previous suits. (Para 22) |
| 8. conclusion and order on appeal. (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT :
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.
1. The captioned appeal is filed by the appellants-Objectors assailing the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed in Ex.No.2401/2024 by the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-57) on the application tendered by the Objectors.
2. Though an objection was raised by the Office with regard to the maintainability of the appeal and though the specific statutory provision was not indicated in the objection tendered before the Executing Court, the objections filed to the main execution petition unmistakably satisfy the essential ingredients of Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the impugned order answers the description of
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.
A third-party objector with no independent legal title or enforceable rights cannot interfere in execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97; prior claims rejected by the court bar subsequent appli....
Prior decrees and established legal agreements govern claims to joint family property; subsequent claims must be substantiated independently to be valid.
Point of law : Transfer of property - Possession is actual defacto possession and cannot be transacted based on the period mentioned in the lease. However, at the end, every relationship comes to an ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellant to substantiate his claim of independent tenancy rights under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19....
The court established that objections to execution based on prior claims are barred by res-judicata, and the executing court cannot entertain repetitive claims without new evidence.
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
