An executing court must adjudicate an obstructionist claim under Order XXI of the CPC on its merits when the objector asserts an independent right to possession, especially when such claim is based on an alleged title transfer from the decree holders, to prevent potential abuse of process.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The objector in Execution Petition No.1409/2019, on the file of the XXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Executing Court'), has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 12.11.2024, by which his application under Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as ‘CPC’) was rejected.

2. (i) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed O.S.No.4933/2012 to evict the respondent No.3 from the suit property. It was their claim that the respondent No.3 was a tenant occupying the suit property and that he had failed to vacate the same even after his tenancy was terminated. The suit after contest was decreed and the respondent No.3 was directed to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit property.

(ii) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 then filed Ex.P.No.1409/2019 to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.4933/2012. During the pendency of the execution petition, the appellant herein filed an application under Order XXI Rules 97, 99, 101 read with Section 151 of CPC, contending that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had sold the suit property to one Mr.M.R.Shariff in terms of a sale deed dated 21.06.2018 and that the appellant was inducted into the suit premises as a tenant on 21.01.2023 and therefore he was entitled to object the execution of the decree as against him.

(iii) This application was opposed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who denied having sold the suit property to Mr.M.R.Shariff in terms of a sale deed dated 21.06.2018. They also alleged that the said application was filed at the instigation of the Judgment Debtor (henceforth referred to as 'JDr'). They contended that the JDr had filed RFA No.448/2019 before this Court, where there was an order that the JDr shall not enter into any transaction or execute any document in favour of Mr.M.R.Shariff or anyone in relation to the suit schedule property nor induct Mr.M.R.Shariff into the occupation of the suit schedule property. Later, the JDr filed an application to implead Mr.M.R.Shariff in RFA No.448/2019, but he did not vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit property.

3. (i) They contended that they did not execute any power of attorney or an agreement of sale in favour of Mr.M.R.Shariff and that the sale deed dated 21.06.2018 brought out in the name of Mr.M.R.Shariff is fraudulent and in that regard, they had filed a complaint before Sampigehalli Police Station and the police had filed a charge sheet against Mr.M.R.Shariff.

(ii) They also contended that Mr.M.R.Shariff had thereafter sold the property to Mr.Afzal Khan and Mr.Ahmed Basha, in terms of the sale dated 03.07.2018. Consequently, the said Mr.Afzal Khan and Mr.Ahmed Basha, were also added as accused in C.C.No.13656/2021, which is pending consideration before the VII ACMM, Bengaluru. It is also contended that neither the purchaser Mr.M.R.Shariff nor the subsequent purchasers, namely Mr.Afzal Khan and Mr.Ahmed Basha, are in possession of the suit schedule property.

(iii) The objector with an intent to create documents filed a suit for injunction against Mr.M.R.Shariff and respondent No.2 in O.S.No.25463/2023, where the Court had rejected an application filed by him for interim injunction. It is therefore contended that the objector is in no way concerned with the suit property and the application filed is only to harass and cause inconvenience to them.

4. Based on these contentions, the Executing Court framed the following points for consideration:

"1. Whether the IA No.VI under Orde