Prior decrees and established legal agreements govern claims to joint family property; subsequent claims must be substantiated independently to be valid.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. This second appeal is also filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of case of objector in Ex.No.125/2010 before the executing Court that applicant Mallaiah S/o late Badaiah filed an application to adjudicate his claim in respect of the petition schedule property. The main contention is that legal representatives of decree holder have instituted the execution petition before the Trial Court against the JDr-Doddakka for obtaining sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property more fully detailed in the schedule as per the terms of decree passed in O.S.No.36/2015. In the process, the sale deed was got executed through the process of law. When, the decree holders were proceeding to obtain actual possession, obstruction was caused by this objector claiming along with his son, their independent title to the suit property. It is the specific case of this objector-Mallaiah that suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.110/11 measuring 2 acres 3 guntas is an ancestral and joint family property, wherein he got vested legitimate half share by birth in the family as a brother of husband of JDr namely, Eranna. After the death of Eranna, the JDr-Doddakka who is the wife of deceased Eranna, tried to alienate the said property and therefore, this objector had filed the suit for partition in O.S.No.49/2005 and the same was decreed granting half share to him in the suit properties and the other properties of the family. Therefore, his claim is that he is having a vested right in the suit property and entitled for half share and hence, decree in O.S.No.36/2005 obtained by decree holder is not executable against him. Therefore, he sought for determination of questions under Section 47 of CPC in addition to raising of objection regarding attachment of property under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC by filing IA.

4. In response to the notice, the legal representatives of DHr have filed objections contending that the JDr being an absolute owner had agreed to sell the suit property and after contest, the suit in O.S.No.36/2005 was decreed. It is further contended that objector got himself examined as PW2 at the earlier point of time and now as RW1 and relied upon the documentary evidence marked as Ex.P1 to P15. In the result, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that provision under Section 47 and Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and proceeded to reject the application filed by the objector vide common Order on I.A.Nos.12 & 13 dated 22.10.2019. Thus, the applicant/ objector, feeling aggrieved by an impugned order passed by the Trial Court had preferred an appeal assailed the same to be improper, incorrect and illegal.

5. After hearing the matter on merits, the District Court has rejected the application with an observation that the applicant could have pressed into service the provisions of Order XXI Rule 97 or 99 of CPC. Also an observation is made that if any application under Order XXI to 97 or 99 of CPC is moved by either DHr or third party objector, if so advised, permissible under law. In such an event, instead of again directing to the parties to adduce fresh evidence, the Court may have reference to the evidence already placed on record and to give further opportunity to adduce additional evidence. Then, det