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
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 decree within the meaning of the Code, and the appeal is therefore maintainable before this Court.
3. Respondent No.1 – the Decree Holder instituted a suit in O.S.No.3159/2021 against respondent No.2 – the original Judgment Debtor seeking ejectment. The suit was founded on the assertion that the lease in favour of respondent No.2 had been terminated and that the Decree Holder was entitled to recover possession of the suit schedule property. During the trial, the present appella
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of valid documentation and unchallenged possession in establishing ownership rights, as well as the requirement for legal challen....
The court affirmed that mere interest in property does not grant standing to object in execution proceedings if title has been conclusively determined.
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
