Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Thoreyamma, W/O Late Sri K. Hutchappa @ Hutchaiah – Appellant
Versus
K.N. Chandraiah, S/O Sri Narayanaswamy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relief sought in writ petition. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. obstruction claims must be recognized in execution. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's duty to adjudicate title during execution. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. application of order xxi and appeals in execution. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed for non-maintainability. (Para 15) |
ORDER :
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking for the following reliefs:-
ii) Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the executing Court (Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Turuvekere) to go on with thorough enquiry in respect of application I.A No.3 filed by the applicants/petitioners by treating the contentions raised in the affidavit in support of an application as an issue to be dealt with by recording the evidence and thereafter to pass the Judgment.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioners title in respect of the suit schedule property in OS No.36/2016 has been declared in OS No.247/2015 which was decreed on 31.01.2016. The proceedings in OS No.36/2016 has taken place behind the back of the petitioners and t
The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
The executing court is competent to consider all questions raised by the persons offering obstruction against execution of the decree and pass appropriate order, which is to be treated as a decree. T....
A third party claiming under a judgment debtor cannot file an application under Order XXI Rule 97; they must file under Rule 99 instead.
A person claiming independent right, title or interest in the property can resist delivery of possession even by filing an objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in the executing court itself and if th....
A subsequent purchaser cannot assert rights against a prior decree holder, as established by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Bonafide purchasers without notice of an original agreement can challenge a decree in a separate suit, as the Execution Court cannot adjudicate on the decree's collusiveness.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a decree obtained by a tenant against a licensee can be executable against subsequent purchasers who are in possession without any lawful decr....
One joint decree-holder may apply for execution for the benefit of all unless expressly stated otherwise; courts can assess intent beyond strict decree wording.
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
