SRI. M.JOHN BENATICK v. BARANI CHITRA

#2. SMT. YASHODA SARAVANAN W/O M.SARAVANAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT C/O R.LINGAKUMAR, NO. 24/5, 2ND CROSS, CHAVARA CHURCH, EJIPURA, BANGALORE-560 047. (BY SRI. SURESH LOKRE., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHRAVAN.S.LOKRE., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:19.03.2025) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22895 RFA No. 2290 of 2019 HC-KAR THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.C. Pattabi Raman, counsel for the appellant and Sri. Suresh Lokre., Senior counsel on behalf of Sri. Shravan S. Lokre, for respondent No.1, appeared in person. Though the appeal is listed today for admission, with the consent of counsel for respective parties, it is heard.

#2. For convenience’s sake, the status and ranking of the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

#3. This is an appeal from the Court of XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit (CCH-29), Bengaluru.

#4. The short facts are these. The plaintiff, Bharani Chitra, filed a suit against the defendant, namely Yashoda Saravanan, seeking the relief of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22895 RFA No. 2290 of 2019 HC-KAR specific performance. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 18.07.2014 decreed the suit and directed the defendant to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- within a month from the date of the Judgment, failing which the plaintiff was to secure the sale deed through the Court office. The defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff filed an Execution Petition in Ex. No.25022/2015. The Executing Court appointed a Court Commissioner, and a sale deed was executed on 06.08.2016. When the Decree Holder went to the spot to obtain possession of the suit schedule property through the Court, the appellant - Mr.M.John Benetick filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. An enquiry was held, and the Executing Court vide order dated 16.11.2019 rejected the application. Under these circumstances, the appellant has filed the captioned appeal under Section 96 of CPC. Counsel Sri.C.Pattabi Raman., for the appellant submits that the order passed by the Executing Court is contrary to law and opposed to the documentary and oral evidence on record. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22895 RFA No. 2290 of 2019 HC-KAR Next, he submits that the appellant is the absolute owner of the property in question as he had purchased the same from the original owner, Yashodha Saravanan, on 20.11.2010. A further submission is made that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and obtained the ex-parte decree by playing fraud. Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the order of the Executing Court is untenable in law and hence, the same may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed. Sri. Suresh Lokre., Senior counsel for the respondent justified the order passed by the Executing Court. Next, he submits that the Decree holder has taken steps to execute the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court by filing an Execution Petition. A further submission is made that the Executing Court appointed a Court Commissioner and executed the Sale Deed on 06.08.2016. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22895 RFA No. 2290 of 2019 HC-KAR Senior counsel vehemently contends that the appellant has no right to obstruct for taking possession of the property in question. Lastly, he submits that the appeal is devoid of merit and the same may be dismissed. Counsel submits that a memo has been filed furnishing the true copy of Reply Notice dated

16.09.2011 and the Rejoinder Notice dated 22.09.2011 and the same may be placed on record. Submission is noted. Memo along with true copy of the documents is placed on record. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers and the records with care.

#5. The short point that would arise for consideration is whether the order passed by the Executing Court requires interference.

#6. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to the obstruction application. Contending that he purchased the property from the original owner Yashoda Saravanan on

20.11.2010, the appellant objected to the execution of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22895 RFA No. 2290 of 2019 HC-KAR decree. The obstructor contends that the plaintiff obtained the decree by playing fraud. In this Court also, he has adhered to the said contention. Counsel Sri.C.Pattabi Raman, in presenting his arguments, vehemently contends that the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 29.06.2011 and the vendor replied to the notice on 16.09.2011 through her advocate by giving a different address. However, the plaintiff never sent the summons to the said address. By way of reply to this contention, Sri. Suresh Lokre., Senior counsel submits that a rejoinder was sent on

22.09.2011 to the reply notice, intimating that the agreement holder has already initiated action seeking the relief of specific performance in O.S.No.26419/2011 and also intimated the date of hearing. He argued by saying that the vendor did not respond to the rejoinder and did not appear in the suit. Counsel, therefore, submits that the obstructor is not justified in contending that the plaintiff obtained the decree by playing fraud. A perusal of the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court depicts that after the registration of the suit, the summons was sent; the defendant remained absent; hence, she was placed - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22895 RFA No. 2290 of 2019 HC-KAR ex parte. Moreover, the obstructor resisted the possession, and the Executing Court rejected the contentions. Furthermore, Order 21 Rule 97 allows the decree holder to apply to the Executing Court when he or she faces resistance or obstruction in obtaining possession of the property, i.e., the subject matter of the decree. The purchaser, having bought the property from the judgment debtor, is essentially stepping into the shoes of the judgment debtor. Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC is specifically for the decree holder to seek assistance in executing the decree when faced with resistance or obstruction. The purchaser, having acquired the property from the judgment debtor, is considered a representative of the judgment debtor and is bound by the decree. In the present case, the obstructor has purchased the property from the Judgment Debtor; hence, he is bound by the decree. To conclude, I can say only this much that the Executing Court in extenso referred to the material on record and rightly rejected the application. I find no merit to admit the appeal. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22895 RFA No. 2290 of 2019 HC-KAR

#7. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16