ORDER

1. These facts are not in dispute:

(a) On 01.09.2008, deceased T.Hemantha Kumar—

respondent No.1 herein, instituted a suit in O.S.

No.5889 of 2008 for eviction against the petitioner.

(b) It was his case that the suit property—a residential house belonged to him and his brother, and under a registered partition deed dated 28.02.2008, the entire property bearing Site No.77/A was given to his share.

(c) It was stated that he and his brother had in fact inducted the petitioner as a tenant in the year 2004 and since, he was a chronic defaulter. While in the United States of America, he was constrained to terminate the tenancy through his duly constituted Power of Attorney holder S.Nagappa (his father-in-

law).

(d) It may be pertinent to state here that T.Hemanth Kumar, at the relevant point in time, was a citizen of the United State of America and was residing there.

(e) On 16.12.2010, the suit for ejectment filed in O.S.

No.5889 of 2008 was decreed and the petitioner was directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit property within six months.

(f) The petitioner challenged the said decree of eviction by filing an appeal before this Court in R.F.A.

No.1019 of 2011 which was also dismissed on

18.08.2011.

(g) The petitioner, on 28.03.2013 i.e., nearly two years after he lost possession, instituted a suit in O.S. No.25557 of 2013 seeking for specific performance of an agreement of sale stated to have executed on 06.12.2004 in his favour in respect of the suit property by T.Hemanth Kumar and stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.84,60,000/- out of the agreed sale consideration of Rs.85,00,000/-.

(h) In the said suit, the petitioner stated that T.Hemanth Kumar and his brother were residing at No.109, 9th Main road, 2nd “A” Cross, RPC Layout, Vijayanagar II Stage, Bangalore-560040”.

(i) In this suit, the summons ordered to T.Hemanth Kumar and his brother was returned with an endorsement stating that “no such person in the furnished address” and on the basis of the said endorsement, the suit summons by way of paper publication was taken and thereafter, T.Hemanth Kumar and his brother were place ex parte.

(j) On the basis of this ex parte decree passed on

25.02.2014, the petitioner proceeded to file an execution proceeding in E.P. No.25041 of 2014 and also obtained a sale deed from the Court.

(k) On 28.04.2016, T.Hemanth Kumar passed away in the United State of America leaving behind his wife, who had succeeded to his estate.

(l) It is stated that his wife—Smt.Roopa Hemanth came across a notice issued regarding undervaluation of the sale deed from the District Registrar’s office and immediately after verification, she learnt about the filing of the suit in O.S. No.25557 of 2013 against her husband—T.Hemanth Kumar, in which he was placed ex parte and decree was obtained.

(m) Smt.Roopa, on 09.01.2017, instituted a suit in O.S.

No.249 of 2017 through her Power of Attorney holder seeking for a declaration that the judgment and decree obtained against her husband in O.S.

No.25557 of 2013 was null and void.

(n) As the matter stood thus, on 04.02.2017, the petitioner herein filed another execution proceedings in E.P. No.25015 of 2017 seeking for delivery of possession, without even disclosing the death of T.Hemanth Kumar.

(o) The petitioner also entered appearance in O.S.

No.249 of 2017 which was filed by the wife of T.Hemanth Kumar and he ultimately filed a written statement but even in the written statement, he did not disclose the filing of E.P. No.25015 of 2017.

(p) On 24.04.2017, the petitioner broke open the lock of the petition premises with the aid of Police and took possession.

(q) Immediately thereafter, on 25.04.2017, Roopa Hemanth filed an application for restitution of possession in E.P. No.25015 of 2017 on the ground that she was dispossessed by playing fraud on the Court.

(r) The Executing Court by an order dated 14.07.2017 directed restitution of possession to Roopa Hemanth and she was immediately given possession of the premises on 0