The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.

ORDER :

S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking for the following reliefs:-

"i) Quash Annexure A order dated 18/01/2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Turuvekere on I.A.No.3 in Ex.No.25/2017.

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.

iii) Pass such other Writ/s or order/s, which are deemed to be fit in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Suit in OS No.36/2016 was filed by respondent No.1 herein against respondent No.2 herein seeking the relief of specific performance. The said suit was decreed with costs by judgment and decree dated 09.10.2017. The Decree Holder has filed Execution Case No.25/2017 before the Trial Court to execute the decree passed in OS No.36/2016. IA No.3 was filed in Execution Case No.25/2017 by the petitioners herein under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC . The Trial Court vide the order impugned has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.

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 the said decree is a collusive decree. The judgment debtor has played fraud on the petitioners as well as the decree holder in OS No.36/2016. The Executing Court has not held any enquiry with regard to the right, title and interest of the petitioners in the suit schedule property. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was determination of their rights under Rule 101 of Order XXI of CPC . She submits that order impugned therefore, cannot be considered as a decree as provided under Rule 103 of . She also submits that person having right, title and interest on the property can maintain an objection under Order XXI Rule 97 of even before he is dispossessed from the property in question. In support of her arguments, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs. and Others vs. V. Rajamani and Another - (2025) 9 SCC 568

5. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondent submits that order impugned is appealable in view of Rule 103 of Order XXI of CPC . He also submits that since the petitioners are not dispossessed and the proceedings before the Executing Court is at the stage of preparing 11-E sketch in respect of the suit schedule property, the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of , was not maintainable. He submits that petitioners herein who are the wife and son of late K. Huchappa, who is the vendor of respondent No.2 herein have colluded with respondent No.2 and a compromise decree was passed in OS No.247/2015. He submits that since the petitioners did not have a pre-existing right in respect of the suit schedule property, the decree passed in O.S.No.247/2015 is compulsorily registerable. Therefore, the petitioners have not derived any right, title or interest under the decree passed in OS No.247/2015 since the said decree is not registered. He, accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.

6. Respondent No.