1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

R.S.A.NO.419/2021 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI GANGARAMAIAH,

S/O LATE RAMAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

R/O KAREKALPALYA,

DASANAPURA HOBLI,

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560 025.

… APPELLANT

[BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR

M/S. LEX NEXUS]

AND:

1.

SMT. CHIKKAMMA,

W/O CHIKKANNA,

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

R/O MARALENAHALLI VILLAGE,

GOLLARAHATTI, TUMKUR KASABA,

TUMAKURU TALUK-572 101.

2.

SMT.NAGAMMA,

W/O RAJANNA,

D/O RANGASWAMAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

R/O KUPPUR VILLAGE,

TUMAKURU TALUK-572 101.

... RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE C/R-1;

NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT

VIDE ORDER DATED 15.07.2021]

2

THIS R.S.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.09.2020

PASSED IN R.A.NO.290/2019 (OLD NO.93/2018) ON THE FILE

OF

THE

VII

ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT

JUDGE,

TUMAKURU,

DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED

01.06.2018 PASSED IN EX.NO.6/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-I AT TUMAKURU, OVER-

RULING THE OBJECTION OF APPELLANT AND HOLDING THAT

APPELLANT, HAS NO RIGHT OVER EXECUTION SCHEDULE

PROPERTY.

THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the

learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for

respondent No.1 after securing the records from the Court

below.

2.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

decree dated 30.09.2020 passed in R.A.No.290/2019 on the file

of the VII Additional District Judge, Tumakuru.

3.

The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Trial Court to avoid the confusion and for the

convenience of this Court.

4.

The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant

herein had filed an application before the Executing Court under

3

Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC to adjudicate his claim over the suit

schedule property. The appellant/objector in his affidavit filed in

support of the application states that the DHR herein filed a suit

against the JDR herein for the relief of specific performance in

respect of the suit schedule property based on the unregistered

and insufficiently stamped agreement of sale. The JDR herein

did not file her written statement due to her illiteracy and ill

health. The said agreement of sale was created and concocted

by the DHR. The agreement schedule property Sy.No.51/1A

measuring 1 acre 38 guntas of Maralenahally village originally

belonged to Chennamma and Lingamma. They sold the same in

favour of Doddaiah S/o late Rangappa in the year 1978. After

purchasing the property, Doddaiah came in possession and not

made alienation in any form. He did not execute any sale deed

or agreement of sale in favour of the DHR Chikkamma or JDR

Nagamma. Nagamma was not having any right or title over the

schedule property to execute agreement of sale in favour of the

DHR. The objector purchased Sy.No.51/1A measuring 1 acre 38

guntas under a sale deed from Doddaiah and came in possession

of the same. The DHR intentionally not impleaded the lawful

owners to the original suit and also in the execution petition with

4

an intention to knock off the property. The DHR, though not

concerned to the schedule property had filed false suit without

the knowledge of the objector and his vendor. Hence, prayed to

declare his right over the property purchased by him.

5.

The DHR replied to the application filed under Order

21 Rule 97 of CPC contending that the land in Sy.No.51/1A of

Maralenahalli village bounded by land of Kempaiah towards East,

land of Chikkamma towards West, land of Eranna towards North

and land of Madakanna Rangaiah towards South was originally

belonged to one Chikkamma and she sold the same i