Karnataka High Court
Smt N Vijayalakshmi vs Smt Poornima Rajani on 11 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36297
RFA No. 2029 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2029 OF 2025 (RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. N. VIJAYALAKSHMI
D/O SRI N.T. NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.003, GROUND FLOOR,
BHARATH PRESIDENCY,
M.L.NO.09, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
2ND BLOCK, GORAGUNTEPALYA,
BENGALURU-560022. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. POORNIMA RAJANI
W/O SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY K.G.
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.73/1, 1ST FLOOR
Digitally signed by 16TH CROSS CORNER, 4TH MAIN,
MAHALAKSHMI B M MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-560055.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF REP. BY HER HUSBAND AND
KARNATAKA SPA HOLDER,
SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY K.G.
2. SRI SRINIVAS .N
S/O SRI M. NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.740/2 (19), 4TH CROSS,
PIPELINE ROAD, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
YESHWANTHPUR,
BENGALURU-560022. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRASANNA V.R., AND
SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI K., ADVOCATES FOR C/R-1)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36297
RFA No. 2029 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.08.2025 PASSED IN
EX.P.NO.2767/2013 ON THE FILE OF XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., REJECTING THE APPLICATION
FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 97, 99 AND 101 R/W SECTION 151 OF
CPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The present regular first appeal is filed by the objector against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2025 passed by the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16) in Ex.P. No.2767/2013 connected with O.S. No.7055/2013 and O.S. No.4833/2013. By the impugned judgment and decree, the objector's application under Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 read with 151 CPC came to be dismissed.
2. Brief facts:
Execution petition originates from O.S. No.8083/2011, where Poornima Rajani (landlord/decree holder) sued Srinivas N (tenant/judgment debtor) for -3- NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR ejectment, arrears of rent and possession. On 05.07.2013, the Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the arrears of rent of Rs.2,12,500/- from June 2010 to October 2011 to be payable by the tenant N. Srinivas and mesne profits of Rs.12,500/- per month from November 2011 until delivery of possession. The said judgment and decree has attained finality. The execution proceedings were filed in Ex. P. No.2767/2013. During the execution, the wife of the judgment debtor (appellant), claiming independent possession under the lease deed dated 19.12.2008 and an agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009, filed O.S. No.7055/2013 seeking declaration and injunction that the decree in O.S. No.8083/2011 is not binding on her. O.S. No.4833/2013 was instituted for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 20.04.2009 against the alleged landlord Poornima Rajani (decree holder). All the three matters were clubbed and tried together.
3. By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court held that the appellant-plaintiff is not entitled for -4- NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR declaration that the decree in O.S. No.8083/2011 is not binding upon her and held that it is valid and binding, as Vijayalakshmi (appellant) was aware and even represented her husband. Further, O.S. No.4833/2013 seeking specific performance was dismissed as barred by limitation since the agreement was of the year 2009 and the suit was filed in the year 2013, the trial Court also dismissed the suit on merits on the ground that the agreement of sale was fabricated. Ex. P.No.2767/2013 was allowed. The obstruction petition was rejected. It was held that the decree holder is entitled to proceed with the eviction of the judgment debtor and his family, and by the impugned judgment and decree held that the landlord is entitled to enforce the decree of eviction in O.S. No.8083/2011.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Executing Court has failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence on record while rejecting -5- NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR the application of the objector. The following grounds are urged:
i. It is contended that the decree in O.S. No.8083/ 2011 is a fraudulent decree, inasmuch as the defendant/the judgment debtor was never a tenant of the premises.
ii. No material was placed before the trial Court in O.S. No.8083/2011 to establish the existence of a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
iii. The decree came to be passed ex parte, as the defendant deliberately remained absent, thereby causing hardship to the present appellant/objector, who is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule premises along with her two sons.
iv. The appellant placed reliance on the lease deed executed by the decree holder in her favour, under which a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- was paid to the decree holder, and which amount is reflected in the subsequent agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009 and that these documents including -6- NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR the agreement of sale, were produced before the Court and marked as Ex.P1 in the common evidence. However, the Executing Court failed to give due weight to these exhibits while rendering its decision.
v. That the appellant has instituted O.S. No.7055/2013 questioning the validity of the decree in O.S. No.8083/2011 and O.S. No.4833/2013 seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale. These two suits, along with the execution petition, were clubbed and tried together.
vi. The Executing Court, while delivering a common judgment, failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record in relation to the distinct reliefs sought in different proceedings. As a result, the Court 'confused' the issues and failed to render findings on the specific claim of the objector / appellant.
vii. The appellant has been in continuous and lawful possession of the suit schedule property under the lease and subsequent agreement of sale and has invested -7- NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR substantial consideration therein. Despite this, the Executing Court has rejected her obstruction application mechanically, without addressing the legal effect of such possession and payments.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and decree is unsustainable in law and on facts. The Executing Court has failed to appreciate the appellant's evidence including Ex.P1 and has wrongly proceeded to enforce a decree, which is fraudulent and not binding on the appellant and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would urge the following grounds:
i. That the appellant and her husband have acted in collusion with each other in order to obstruct the decree holder from enjoying the fruits of the decree. The attempt of the appellant to portray herself, as an independent -8- NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR tenant and purchaser, is a clear afterthought device in collusion with her husband.
ii. The appellant has taken inconsistent stand regarding her address and possession. On one hand, she claims to be a tenant inducted on 19.12.2008, on the other, she relies upon the agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009. Such dual claims themselves discredit her case.
iii. The landlord initiated O.S. No.8083/2011 against Srinivas N, the husband of the appellant for ejectment and arrears of rent. The suit was decreed on 05.07.2013 in favour of the landlord. This establishes the jural relationship of landlord and tenant with Srinivas .N, and not with the appellant independently. The present attempt by the appellant to claim exclusive possession and tenancy is therefore untenable.
iv. That MC No.1431/2001 was filed by the husband seeking divorce against the appellant. The case was dismissed for non-prosecution in 2002. Only in 2016, -9- NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR on a miscellaneous application filed by the appellant-wife, the matter was restored and thereafter, referred to mediation. Ultimately, the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat in 2017. This history shows that the appellant and her husband were actively litigating together and her claim that she was separated since 2001 is false and misleading.
v. The appellant filed O.S. No.4833/2013 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009 only after the decree in O.S. No.8083/2011 was passed. This shows that the so called agreement of sale was set up as a defence mechanism to obstruct execution.
vi. The order sheet in O.S. No.8083/2011-Ex.D15 clearly records that on 06.03.2012, the appellant herself appeared in the suit proceedings on behalf of her husband. In Ex. P No.2767/2013, the order dated 13.12.2013 shows that the appellant made allegation against the Presiding Officer. Further, in the affidavit filed in the execution
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR petition, the appellant repeated the allegation against the Presiding Officer. Such conduct demonstrates malafides and attempt to browbeat the Court, which disentitles her from any equitable relief.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent therefore submits that the appeal is devoid of merit. The decree in O.S. No.8083/2011 is valid and binding, the obstruction raised by the appellant is dishonest and contrary to record. By the impugned judgment dated 01.08.2025 the appellant's claim has rightly been dismissed and no interference by this Court is called for.
8. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the points that arise for consideration are:
"i. Whether the appellant / objector has proved any independent right, title or lawful possession so as to resist execution in Ex. P. No.2767/2013?
ii. Whether the decree in O.S. No.8083/2011 is binding and executable against the judgment
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR debtor and the persons claiming through him, and whether the Executing Court rightly proceeded to enforce it?"
9. The decree for ejectment and arrears in O.S. No.8083/2011 was passed on 05.07.2013, directing the judgment debtor to handover vacant possession within three months, Rs.2,12,500/- was ordered to be the arrears from June 2010 to October 2011 and damages at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per month from November 2011 was ordered. The decree holder initiated Ex. P. No.2767/2013 to execute the decree. During execution, the present appellant/objector profounded a lease deed dated 19.12.2008 and an agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009 and also filed O.S. No.7055/2013 for declaration and injunction that the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2013 in O.S. No.8083/2011 is not binding on her and O.S. No.4833/2013 seeking specific performance of contract of agreement to sell dated 20.04.2009. All three were clubbed, a common judgment dated
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR 01.08.2025 was pronounced by the Trial Court. The appellant claims that:
i. The decree in O.S. No.8083/2011 is fraudulent since her husband was never a tenant; ii. The decree is ex parte and engineered to dispossess her though she is in settled possession with her two sons;
iii. Her lease deed dated 19.12.2008 and agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009 prove an independent right;
iv. The clubbing of her two suits with execution petition 'confused' the Court and; v. There were serious improprieties during proceedings, including coercion, for which it is asserted a vigilance enquiry exists.
10. From the records, it is gathered that in O.S. No.8083/2011, the landlord-tenant relationship was pleaded and pursued against her husband and the ejectment suit culminated in a decree dated 05.07.2013.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR Significantly, the Trial Court records indicate that the suit in O.S. No.8083/2011 'after contest' was partly decreed for possession, arrears and damages. Thus, this is inconsistent with the appellant's assertion of an ex parte decree. The execution proceedings were thereafter instituted and tried with the appellant's two suits under a common judgment dated 01.08.2025.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant states that though the common judgment dated 01.08.2025 disposed of execution petition along with O.S. No.7055/2013 and O.S. No.4833/2013, the present appeal has been preferred only against the order in Ex. P. No.2767/2013 because, it is the execution proceedings that have resulted in immediate prejudice to the appellant, namely, the threat of dispossession and enforcement of the decree, the limitation period for challenging the decrees in two connected suits is still subsisting, however, since the execution petition is under active implementation, an appeal against the order was necessitated without delay in
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR order to protect her possession and prevent irreparable injury.
12. It is significant that though the common judgment dated 01.08.2025 disposed of the execution petition along with O.S. Nos.7055/2013 and 4833/2013, the appellant has consciously chosen to challenge only the order in Ex. P. No.2767/2013 while leaving the adverse decrees in the two suits unquestioned. The findings in those suits squarely negate her claim of independent tenancy and of an agreement of sale, and those findings form the very foundation of rejection of her obstruction. By electing not to assail them, the appellant has allowed those determinations to stand, and cannot now re-agitate the same issues indirectly through an appeal confined only to the execution side. Such selective challenge reflects a deliberate tactic to prolong the proceedings and obstruct the decree holder.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR
13. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the appellant had infact appeared in O.S. No.8083/2011 and even paid a sum of Rs.12,500/- towards rent on behalf of defendant No.2 on 21.03.2013, which fact is borne out from the order sheet of O.S. No.8083/2011. Yet, in the Ex.P. No.2767/2013, the appellant took a diametrically opposite stand by denying her very appearance in O.S. No.8083/2011, and went to the extent of filing an affidavit, making allegations against the Presiding Officer that the Presiding Officer secured her presence in chambers, threatened her with dire consequences, and compelled her to sign several papers. Such contradictory stands, coupled with scandalous allegations against the Presiding Officer, clearly reflect conduct that deserves to be deprecated.
14. The contention of the appellant that she was altogether unaware of the proceedings initiated against the judgment debtor, who is none other than her husband, cannot be accepted. Her active participation in the earlier
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR proceedings, as well as the payment made on behalf of her husband, belie her present assertion of ignorance. As could be seen from the order sheet of O.S. No.8083/2011, the appellant had appeared and paid Rs.12,500/- on 21.03.2013, which reflects that it is towards rent on behalf of defendant No.2. The conduct is incompatible with the case of her exclusive possession in her own right and to 'independent possession', the appellant's own appearance in O.S. No.8083/2011 undermines the claim and this Court, therefore, finds no merit in the appellant's plea of being a bonafide obstructor and holds that her version is inconsistent, untrustworthy and a device to protract the execution of a lawful decree.
15. The judgment of the Trial Court holds that the lease deed and sale agreement were disbelieved, the decree holder specifically denied Ex.P.1 dated 20.04.2009, Exs.D.13 and D.13(a) relied upon by the Trial Court and treated the agreement as a created document. From the record, what can be borne out from the pleadings is that
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR the appellant's suit and obstruction were afterthought to stave off eviction. The Executing Court did not go beyond the decree, it examined only whether the appellant had an independent, bonafide claim. On evidence, it was found that her claim fails for want of proof and because the foundational document is found forged. The decree in O.S. No.8083/2011 dated 05.07.2013 passed after contest binds the judgment debtor.
16. This Court finds substance in the respondent's submission that the matrimonial history of the appellant and her husband supports the inference of collusion. The record of M.C. No.1421/2001 shows that the petition was originally filed by the husband seeking divorce from the appellant and dismissed for non-prosecution in 2002, the restoration was not pursued until 2016, and that too, at the instance of the appellant-wife, the petition was restored. The matter was thereafter referred to the mediation and ultimately settled before the Lok Adalat in 2017. In the facts and circumstances, it can only be
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR presumed that restoration sought by the appellant after a long lapse was not bonafide, but was calculative to create a façade of estrangement so as to frustrate the decree and proceedings in O.S. No.8083/2011. The timing and the nature of the restoration proceedings reinforced the collusion that the obstruction raised in execution is collusive, and intended only to delay and obstruct the decree holder from enjoying the fruits of the decree.
17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the appellant has failed to establish any independent right, title or interest in the suit property. The contradictory stands taken by her, the filing of scandalous allegations against the Presiding Officer and her conscious suppression of her own participation in O.S. No.8083/2011 and Ex. P. No.2767/2013 and the recalling of M.C. No.1421/2001 by the appellant herself in the year 2016 clearly reveal the abuse of process of law. The plea of being an bonafide obstructor cannot be accepted.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36297 RFA No. 2029 of 2025 HC-KAR Accordingly, the points framed for consideration are answered and this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. The regular first appeal is dismissed. ii. It is further directed that the Executing Court shall proceed expeditiously with the Ex.P. No.2767/2013 to ensure delivery of possession.
Sd/-
_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30