This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated

03.08.2022 passed in Ex.No.278/2022 by the XIV Addl.Small

Causes Judge, Bangalore, whereby the application I.A.No.1 filed

by the appellant – obstructor under Order 21 Rules 97, 99 and 101

of CPC seeking adjudication of her alleged right, title, interest and

possession over the suit schedule premises was rejected by the

trial court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

- 3 -

3. The material on record discloses that respondents 1 to 3

instituted the suit in S.C.No.1552/2019 against the 4^th respondent

for ejectment and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule

immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the

4^th respondent, came to be decreed in favour of respondents 1 to

3, vide judgment and order dated 08.12.2021. Aggrieved by the

said judgment and order, the defendants in the said suit did not

challenge the same before this Court. On the other hand, the

appellant herein claiming to be the third party obstructor, filed

C.R.P.No.88/2022 before this Court, which was disposed of vide

order dated 17.03.2022 reserving liberty in favour of the appellant

herein to agitated her claim in the present execution proceedings

as an obstructor. Pursuant to the said liberty granted by this Court

in C.R.P.No.88/2022, the appellant herein filed the instant

application I.A.No.1 inter alia contending that she was the tenant

under one P.N.Mohan, brother of respondents 1 and 3 and had

paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh to him and balance of Rs.2,75,000/- to

Mr.B.M.Pradhan son of P.N.Mohan, pursuant to which, the

appellant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

premises.

- 4 -

4. The respondents 1 to 3 – Decree holders opposed the

said application not only denying that the appellant was in

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule premises but also

contended that no right flows from the unregistered alleged

Mortgage Deed dated 16.06.2018 and subsequent unregistered

Mortgage Deed dated 27.05.2021 and the same said to have been

executed during the pendency of S.C.No.1552/2019 did not entitle

the appellant to claim any right over the suit schedule premises.

Respondents 1 to 3 – Decree holders also submitted that the

appellant herein was a tenant in respect of one more portion in the

II floor, in relation to which, the respondents 1 to 3 instituted

S.C.No.1553/2019 which came to be decreed in their favour vide

judgment and order dated 08.12.2021 and confirmed by this Court

in C.R.P.No.87/2022 vide order dated 24.02.2023. It was therefore

submitted by the Decree holders that the appellant did not have

any right to claim to be the obstructor in relation to the suit

schedule premises and consequently, the trial court was fully

justified in coming to the conclusion that the application I.A.No.1

filed by the appellant was not maintainable and liable to be

dismissed.

- 5 -

5. After hearing the parties, the trial court proceeded to pass

the impugned order rejecting I.A.No.1 filed by the appellant in

Ex.No.278/2022 by holding as under:-

ORDER on IA.No.I.

The third party applicant by name Divyamba has

filed application under order 21 Rule 97, 99 and 101 of

CPC prayed to adjudicate the right, title and interest of

the abstractor over the schedule premises.

2.

The third party applicant has filed affidavit

accompanying with application contending that earlier

she

was

a

tenant

under

P.N.P.N.Mohan

S/o.Narasimha Murthy and occupied the portion of

Building No.482, 2^nd Cross, 8^th Main Vijayanagar,

Bengaluru in second floor consisting one hall, one

kitchen, one small bed room with RCC roof under the

agreement of mortgage dated 16-06-2016. The

mortgaged consideration was fixed of Rs.3,75,000/-.

She has paid advanced consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-

and remaining amount of Rs.2,75,000/- was paid on

23-06-2016

to

Pradhan.B.M..B.M.

S/o.

P.N.P.N.Mohan and his mother Smt.Latha.C.L., the

sa