IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2339 OF 2024 (RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS S/O LATE CHIKKANARASAPPA

2. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT DASARAHALLI AVATHI POST DEVANHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562110.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAMESHA .H.E, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M AND:

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

1. SRI. SYED JALEEL AHMED AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE I.S.A. HAKEEM R/AT NO.5/24, 3RD CROSS PEMMEGOWDA ROAD J.C. NAGAR BENGALURU - 560006.

2. SRI. P.K. NARAYANAN S/O CHATHU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS KHB MAIN ROAD MANORAYANAPALYA CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI BBMP WARD NO.22 HEBBAL RANGE BENGALURU-560032

3. SRI. PAVITHRAN. K S/O CHATHU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS GUINNES TAILORS NO.31, 1ST MAIN ROAD K.H.B. MAIN ROAD MANORAYANAPALYA CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI BBMP WARD NO. 22 HEBBAL RANGE BENGALURU-560032.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. NAGARAJA RAO, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE

1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.IV IN EX. NO. 1047/2012 ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE IA NO. IV FILED U/O XXI RULE 97 TO 101 R/W SEC. 47 OF CPC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the obstructors assailing the order passed by the Executing Court on I.A.No.4 dated

01.10.2024 passed in Ex.Case No.1047/2012.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as per the ranking before the Executing Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The decree holder filed a suit in O.S.No.5515/2010 seeking relief of declaration and eviction against the judgment debtors. In the said suit, the Court granted relief of possession. Based on a decree granted in O.S.No.5515/2010, the decree holder has filed a execution petition in Ex.Case No.1047/2012. Pending consideration of the execution proceedings, the objectors who are tracing right and title through one Nagaraj have filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97. According to the obstructors, they are asserting title based on the sale deed executed by Nagaraj and his son on 29.05.1999. The obstructors are also placing reliance on interim order passed in O.S.Nos.6570/2004 and 6571/2004. Referring to these title documents, objectors sought for adjudication of their title, asserting that they possesses independent title and therefore, the decree which pertains to the property purchased by them, cannot be enforced. The objectors asserted that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Ashwath Narayana and his two sons who sold the property in favour of one Gopal Rao on 30.10.1953 and after death of Gopal Rao, objectors claimed that their vendor Nagaraj succeeded by way of inheritance. Nagaraj in-turn has sold the property in favour of objector Nos.1 and 2 on 29.05.1999.

4. Per contra, the decree holder resisted the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97. The decree holder contended that the subject matter of the execution proceedings and the one claimed by the objectors are totally different. While sale deed obtained by objectors refers to existing mud house, whereas the suit property, which is the subject matter of execution petition is a non- residential property comprising commercial shops. The decree holder referring to the records pointed out that tenants are in occupation and therefore, the property purchased by the objectors and the one claimed by decree holder are totally different. Referring to the description obtained by the objectors regarding the property, the decree holder contended that it is identified as a khaneshumari number and the property is shown to be built of mud wall with AC sheet house, without civic amenities.

5. Per contra, the decree holder's property is described as p