The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1516 OF 2025 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMI .K AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS W/O K.V. KRISHNA RESIDING AT NO.36, 2ND CROSS THIMMAREDDY COLONY JEEVAN BHEEMANAGARA BENGALURU-560 075. (BY SRI. S. BASAVARAJ, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. L. SRINIVASA BABU, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. SRI. R S YERRAPPA S/O LATE SANNALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT NO.749, 3RD BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. 2. SRI. JAYARAMA REDDY S/O LATE SANNALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O RAJAVANTHI, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 3. SMT. R S NINGAMMA W/O SRI LAKSHMAN AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR 4. SMT. ESHWARAMMA W/O SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 5. SMT. NAGAMANI W/O SRI NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 6. SMT. SAKAMMA W/O SRI JAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R3 TO R6 ARE RESIDENTS OF C/O JAYARAMA REDDY R/O RAJAVANTHI, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT. (BY SRI. K.K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2025 PASSED ON IA IN EX. P. NO.25057/2015 ON THE FILE OF LXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT AT BENGALURU (CCH 75), DISMISSING THE IA FILED U/O XXI RULE 97 AND 101 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
Legal Reasoning
was also upheld by this Court in RFA No.561/2009. These concurrent findings by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court conclusively settled the title in favour of the decree holders, namely, the legal heirs of Sannalingappa. 12. In the light of the above, the pivotal question that arises for consideration is whether the present - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR appellant who claims through a registered sale deed dated 02.08.2016 executed by the legal representatives of Fatima can sustain a third-party application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, in the face of the decrees passed against her vendors in two exhaustive and contested civil suits. 13. This Court is of the considered opinion that an evaluation of the final decree passed in O.S.No. 15439/2004 is indispensable, as it has a direct bearing on the rights, if any, that could be asserted by the present appellant. The decree in the said suit was passed on 01.04.2009, and it categorically declared that the sale deed dated 10.04.1992 executed in favour of Mohammad Ibrahim was null and void ab initio, and consequently, restrained Fatima and her representatives from alienating or encumbering the suit property in any manner. 14. The operative portion of the decree in O.S.No. 15439/2004 reads as follows: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR "The suit of the plaintiff is decreed declaring that the sale deed dated 10.4.92 is null and void and the plaintiffs are entitled for the possession of the suit schedule property and they are entitled for mesne profits of Rs.25,200/- till the date of suit and future mesne profit at the rate of Rs.700/- P.M from the date of suit till the date of possession. Defendant M.Fatima is restrained from encumbering the suit schedule property." 15. The relevant portion of the decree extracted from O.S.No.15439/2004 unequivocally reveals that the Trial Court, while declaring the sale deed dated 10.04.1992 executed in favour of Mohammad Ibrahim, the father of the third party applicant’s vendor as null and void, also proceeded to grant a perpetual injunction. This injunction categorically restrains Fatima, the vendor of the present appellant, from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR 16. The said perpetual injunction, forming part of the final decree dated 01.04.2009, attained finality when it was upheld by this Court in RFA.No.561/2009. Despite this binding judicial pronouncement, the third party applicant claims to have acquired title over the very same property under a registered sale deed dated 02.08.2016, executed by the legal representatives of Fatima, in direct violation of the decree passed against them. 17. The record, therefore, leaves no room for doubt that the third party applicant’s alleged title is tainted by the decree of perpetual injunction. The sale transaction on which the applicant relies is not only subsequent to the decree but is also in breach of the express terms of the injunction granted by a competent civil court. Consequently, the third party applicant cannot be permitted to assert any independent right or title over the suit schedule property that is contrary to the binding and subsisting decree. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR 18. Turning to the application filed by the third party applicant under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court finds that the pleadings therein themselves fortify the conclusion that the applicant is asserting a claim derived entirely from a party against whom a decree of perpetual injunction is already operative. 19. In order to appreciate the nature of the claim made by the third party applicant, this Court considers it appropriate to extract Paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, which reads as follows: "It is submitted that I have purchased the property under the Execution mentioned as suit schedule property from the judgment debtors under a registered Sale Deed dated 02.08.2016, registered as document No.INR-1-03487/2016-17, Book-I, CD No.INRD173, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Indiranagar, Benglauru. Ever since the date of purchase and on the basis of my Sale Deed, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike has entered my - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR name in the Khata and other relevant documents of the BBMP. The BBMP has assigned PID number to my property as PID No.73-26-36." 20. A plain reading of Paragraph 2 of the affidavit extracted above leaves no room for doubt that the third party applicant has categorically admitted to having purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 02.08.2016 executed by the legal heirs of Fatima, who are none other than the judgment debtors in the suit proceedings. When this admission is read in conjunction with the decree passed in O.S.No. 15439/2004, which had declared the sale deed dated 10.04.1992 executed in favour of Fatima’s father, Mohammad Ibrahim as null and void, it becomes abundantly clear that the foundation of title relied upon by the applicant stands on legally extinguished rights. 21. In other words, the decree conclusively negates any right, title or interest that Mohammad Ibrahim or his successors could claim in the suit property. Therefore, the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR applicant, who admittedly claims under the judgment debtor, has no better title than her vendor, and cannot assert any independent right or possession over the suit schedule property contrary to the decree. 22. Once a decree is passed declaring that Mohammad Ibrahim, the father of the applicant’s vendor, did not have any valid title, the logical corollary is that Fatima, his daughter, inherited no saleable interest in the suit property. As such, she lacked the capacity to lawfully convey any right or title in the suit schedule property to the third party applicant. The records further disclose that Fatima and her legal representatives have suffered decrees in both O.S.No.6181/1993 (for possession) and O.S.No.15439/2004 (declaring title void and restraining alienation). In view of these concurrent findings by competent courts, this Court is firmly of the opinion that the third party applicant has failed to establish an independent or bona fide claim to the property. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR 23. Accordingly, no further adjudication was necessary, as the applicant’s claim is wholly derivative and contrary to a subsisting decree. The Executing Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC without relegating the applicant to trial. 24. This Court would also like to reaffirm the well- settled position of law, consistently upheld in several binding precedents, that a third party objector seeking to resist execution of a decree for possession must prima facie demonstrate an independent title that is dehors (i.e., independent of and not traceable to) the title of the judgment debtor. Unless such a threshold is met by producing credible documentary evidence or establishing lawful possession based on independent rights, the resistance to execution proceedings is unsustainable and liable to be rejected at the threshold. 25. In the present case, the third party applicant has not acquired any lawful or independent title, and - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR the sale deed dated 02.08.2016 relied upon by her does not confer any legal right or interest in the suit property. On the contrary, it was executed in clear violation of a perpetual injunction binding on her vendor. The sale is thus void and non est in the eyes of law, having been executed by a party who had no authority or right to alienate the property. 26. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Executing Court, rejecting the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional or appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the point for consideration formulated above is answered in the Negative. 27. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by the third party applicant who is questioning the order passed by the learned Judge on an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 and 101 of CPC. 2. The respondents/decree holders instituted a suit against one Fatima and others seeking possession of the suit property. In parallel, Fatima filed a suit in O.S.No. 10870/1993 seeking a decree of permanent injunction against Sannalingappa, the predecessor of respondent Nos.1 to 6. Upon learning that Fatima was asserting title to the suit property through a sale deed dated 10.04.1992 allegedly executed in favour of her father, Sannalingappa instituted a suit in O.S.No.15439/2004 seeking a declaration that the said sale deed was null and void. 3. All three suits were clubbed and jointly tried. The suit for possession filed by Sannalingappa (O.S.No. 6181/1993) was decreed. The suit filed by Fatima for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR injunction (O.S.No.10870/1993) was dismissed. The suit filed by Sannalingappa (O.S.No.15439/2004) was decreed, wherein the sale deed obtained by Fatima’s father was declared null and void, and Fatima was restrained from encumbering the suit schedule property. 4. Pursuant to the said decrees, the present appellant, claiming through a sale deed dated 02.08.2016 executed by the legal representatives of Fatima, filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asserting independent title and obstructing execution of the possession decree. The Executing Court, however, rejected the said application on multiple grounds. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/third-party applicant submitted that the Executing Court committed a serious error in summarily rejecting the application without affording an opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence in support of her - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR independent title. It is contended that the appellant claims title under a registered sale deed and, therefore, cannot be dispossessed without adjudication of her rights in accordance with law. 6. In response, learned counsel for the decree holders placed reliance on the records and produced a paper book consisting of the common judgment rendered in the clubbed suits, the decrees passed by the Trial Court, and the judgment of this Court in the appeals arising therefrom. It is submitted that all three appeals were dismissed, affirming the decrees passed in O.S.Nos. 6181/1993 and 15439/2004. It is further pointed out that the appeal filed by the appellant’s vendor was also dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the sole issue that arises for consideration before this Court is: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR "Whether the Executing Court was justified in summarily rejecting the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC without permitting the appellant to lead evidence in support of her claim of independent title?" The answer, in the considered opinion of this Court, is in the Negative. Finding on the point: 8. Before this Court proceeds to adjudicate the issue on merits, it is necessary to examine the chain of title and events leading up to the present proceedings. The records unequivocally reveal that the suit schedule property was originally owned by one Pushpa Kalyani, who had acquired the same under a registered sale deed dated 06.09.1972. Upon her demise in the year 1974, her husband David Issac, along with their son, sold the property to Sannalingappa, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent Nos.1 to 6, through a registered sale deed dated 06.03.1986. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR 9. Following the sale, Sannalingappa asserted his ownership over the suit property and initiated eviction proceedings against one Mohammad Ibrahim in HRC No. 232/1987 on the ground that he was a tenant under him. The records reflect that in the said eviction proceedings, the relationship of landlord and tenant between Sannalingappa and Mohammad Ibrahim was acknowledged. However, the eviction petition was ultimately disposed of without granting relief, as Mohammad Ibrahim’s daughter, Fatima, entered the fray by asserting an independent title over the suit property. Fatima contended that her father, Mohammad Ibrahim, had purchased the suit property from the sons of Pushpa Kalyani under a registered sale deed dated 10.04.1992, thereby disputing the title of Sannalingappa. 10. The claim of Fatima and the assertion of counter-title through the sale deed dated 10.04.1992 likely prompted Sannalingappa to take legal recourse by instituting two comprehensive suits: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:23991 RFA No. 1516 of 2025 HC-KAR (i) O.S.No.6181/1993 seeking possession of the suit property, and (ii) O.S.No.15439/2004 seeking a declaration that the alleged sale deed dated 10.04.1992 executed in favour of Mohammad Ibrahim (Fatima’s father) is null and void. 11. After a full-fledged trial, both suits were decreed in favour of Sannalingappa. The decree passed in O.S.No.6181/1993, granting possession, was carried in appeal in RFA.No.560/2009 and came to be affirmed by this Court. Likewise, the decree in O.S.No.15439/2004, declaring the sale deed dated 10.04.1992 as null and void,
Decision
ORDER Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34