Legal representatives cannot claim rights to property not allotted to their predecessor in earlier decrees; previous judgments attaining finality preclude contestation of property rights.

ORDER :

1. Petitioners who are judgment debtors are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 14.02.2024 passed on I.A.No.X in Ex.No.4336 of 2019 by the Court of X Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Facts leading to filing of this writ petition narrated briefly are, O.S.No.489 of 1980 was filed by Smt. Lilly Mary and Smt. M Lourdu Mary and in the said suit, the father of petitioners herein, late John Bosco was arrayed as defendant No.3. During the pendency of O.S.No.489 of 1980, John Bosco had died and his wife and children were brought on record as defendant no. 3(a) to 3(j). O.S.No.489 of 1980 was decreed by judgment and decree dated 13.02.1989. The trial Court in O.S.No.489 of 1980 had held that defendant no.10 and 11 in the suit had proved that they had purchased the suit schedule property for valid consideration from defendant no.3 John Bosco and defendant nos.5 to 9 respectively. Therefore, it was held that defendant no.11 was entitled for the share of defendant no.3-John Bosco and defendant no.10 was entitled for the share of defendant nos.5 to 9 in suit schedule 'A' property. As against this finding recorded by the trial Court, the plaintiff had approached this Court in R.F.A.No.592 of 1989, which was allowed by this Court by Judgment and decree dated 27.11.1998 and it was held that sale made to defendant nos.10 and 11 was void and the plaintiffs were permitted to pay the sale price to the defendant nos.10 and 11 and take their shares as and when for the plaintiffs.

4. Subsequently, legal representatives of defendant no.2 - Patrick Antony had initiated final decree proceedings in F.D.P.No.15 of 2002 and in the said proceedings, the dispute between the parties who were allotted share in O.S.No.489 of 1980 was settled and a memorandum of settlement was executed and based on the same, final decree was drawn in FDP No.15 of 2002. Subsequently, Ex.No.4336 of 2019 was filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiffs before the trial Court and in the said proceedings, I.A.No.X was filed on behalf of the petitioners herein under Section 151 of CPC to stay the order of sale of proclamation and spot sale of the schedule property mentioned in the final decree which was passed in F.D.P.No.15 of 2002. The said application was opposed by the decree holders and also by the legal representatives of defendant no.2 in the suit. The trial Court, vide the order impugned had dismissed I.A.No.X with exemplary cost of ₹ 1,000/- and being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioners have initiated separate final decree proceedings in F.D.P.No.33 of 2018 which is pending consideration. In the meanwhile, in F.D.P.No.15 of 2002, a final decree was drawn based on the memorandum of settlement filed by the other parties to the suit for which petitioners are not signatories. The same is therefore not binding on the petitioners. She submits that during the pendency of F.D.P.No.33 of 2018, if the final decree passed in FDP No.15 of 2002 is permitted to be executed, the petitioners who have got a share in the property would be put to hardship.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that in the decree which was passed in O.S.No.489 of 1980, the father of the petitioners late John Bosco was not allotted any share. The petitioners claim under John Bosco,