An application under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC is not maintainable if the applicant fails to establish a claim to the attached property and if prior proceedings have attained finality.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI Rule 58, 101 - Appeal against dismissal of application claiming interest in award amount - The appellant's claim was rejected as the proceedings in LAC No.1/2013 attained finality and the objector could not expand the scope of execution beyond the decree. (Paras 4, 10, 19)

(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 30 - The appellant failed to challenge the land acquisition proceedings or establish any claim under the Act, rendering the application under Order XXI Rule 58 untenable. (Paras 5, 16, 19)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, claiming rights over land acquired for BMRCL, filed an application under Order XXI Rule 58, which was dismissed by the Trial Court on grounds of lack of standing and finality of prior proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The Executing Court's dismissal of the application was upheld as the appellant's claims were deemed impermissible and without merit.

Issues: Whether the impugned order of rejection of I.A.No.3 is sustainable in law?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application was not maintainable as the amount in deposit was not under attachment and the appellant failed to establish any interest in the property.

Result: The appeal is dismissed with costs.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULES 1 & 2 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN EX. NO.45/2019 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE., REJECTING THE IA NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 58, 101 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 01.10.2024 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

AND

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

Challenging dismissal of his application under Order XXI Rule 58, 101 read with Section 151 of CPC, the third party applicant/objector in Ex.No.45/2019 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru has preferred this appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant is the great grandson of one Muniswamappa. For better appreciation of facts of the case, the pedigree of B.M.Muniswamappa is extracted as follows:

B M Muniswamappa (Sons) | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | | | B M Appareddy B M Venkataswamappa B M Ramaswamy B M Narayanaswamy B M Krishnamurthy B M Appaswamy | | | | | | Indramma arojamma Jayamma Died Unmarried Jayadeva Died Unmarried Will in favour of (Decree | B K Ravichandra & holder) B K Ravichandra B K Manamohan B K Manamohan | | | Sudarshini Manjunath Renuka Susheela Daughters of B M Muniswamappa | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | B M Venkatamma B M Akkayyamma B M Saraswatamma | | | |-----------------------------------| |-----------------------------------| | | | | | | | | Sriramareddy Sarojamma Savitramma Rajalakshmi Susheelamma Prabhakar Ramakrishna C L N Murthy Baskar Gayatri (Son) (Died) (Died) | | | Lakshmidevamma Mangala (Wife) | Shivakumari | Ravindra Jayadeva Sadguna Chandrakala | Pramila (Wife)

3. For the better appreciation, the dates and events of the case are set out as follows:

1948	B.M.Krishnamurthy S/o late Muniswamappa filed O.S.No.15/48-49 against Muniswamappa and other sons seeking partition of joint family properties. Sy.No.15/1 of Beniganahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk measuring 6 acres 15 guntas was one of the suit properties.
02.11.1950	The parties entered into compromise by filing petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. Under the said compromise, the parties agreed for allotment of shares in certain rate and drawing up of preliminary decree accordingly. They further agreed that Arbitrators appointed shall effect physical division according to their shares in the preliminary decree. In the compromise decree, Schedule A o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document