This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the third party

intervener before the Executing Court, challenging the judgment

and decree dated 11.04.2022, passed in R.A.No.347/2019 on the

file of the XI Addl. District Judge, Belagavi, (hereinafter referred to

as ‘the First Appellate Court’, for brevity), dismissing the appeal

and as such, confirming the order dated 14.12.2017 on I.A.No.1 in

E.P.No.121/2017 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Executing Court’),

dismissing I.A.No.1.

For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal

shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the

Executing Court.

3.

The relevant facts for adjudication of this appeal are

that, respondent No.1 herein has filed O.S.No.306/2016 before the

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi, against the

respondent No.2 herein seeking partition in respect of the suit

schedule properties. The said suit came to be decreed as per the

- 3 -

compromise petition accepted on 24.11.2016. Thereafter,

respondent No.1 herein has filed E.P.No.121/2017 before the

Executing Court, to execute the judgment and decree in

O.S.No.306/2016. During the pendency of the execution

proceedings, appellant herein – Smt. Kavitha, W/o. Krishna

Chougale, has filed I.A.No.1 under Order 21 Rule 97 of Code of

Civil Procedure, to obstruct the execution and delivery of the

property in question. The said application was resisted by the

plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein. The Executing Court after

considering the material on record, by its order dated 14.12.2017,

rejected the application filed by the appellant herein on I.A.No.1.

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the said applicant has preferred

R.A.No.347/2019 before the First Appellate Court and the appeal

was resisted by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein. The First

Appellate Court after considering the material on record by its

judgment and decree dated 11.04.2020, dismissed the appeal,

consequently,

confirmed

the

order

dated

14.12.2017,

in

E.P.No.121/2017 on I.A.No.1 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Belagavi. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the third party-applicant

filed the instant appeal.

- 4 -

4.

I have heard Sri.Shreevatsa Hegde, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant and Sri.Vithal S. Teli, Learned counsel

appearing for the respondents/caveators.

5.

Sri.Shreevatsa Hegde, learned counsel appearing for

the appellant contended that, the judgment and decree passed in

O.S. No.306/2016, based on the compromise petition, cannot be

accepted as the judgment debtor/respondent No.2 herein has

executed the gift deed in favour of the third party applicant/

appellant herein on 15.07.2015 and he further contended that, as

the property in question has been gifted in favour of the third party-

applicant, the said property cannot be a subject matter in

E.P.No.121/2017. Therefore, he contended that, the impugned

judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below requires to

be interfered in this appeal.

6.

per contra, Sri. Vithal S. Teli, learned counsel

appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned

judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

7.

In the light of the submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the

facts on record, which reveals that, originally the suit schedule

- 5 -

properties belonged to one Sri.Rajaram Mashekar. He died on

12.12.1996 and his wife Kamalabai died on 23.10.2015. The said

Rajaram Masekar had three children, namely, the respondent No.2

– herein (JDR), respondent No.1 (Decree holder) and another son

Suresh, who died on 20.06.2016 without leaving behind the legal

heirs. The appellant herein is the daughter of respondent No.2

herein (JDR). Respondent No.1 herein has filed O.S. No.306/2016

against the respondent No.2 herein seeking the relief of partition

and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties.

The said suit came to be disposed of