Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

These appeals are directed against the common order passed by the Execution Court (Court of the XXV Additional City Civil Judge), Bangalore on I.A.Nos.12 and 18 to 20 in Execution Case No.434/2008.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the first respondent in both the appeals purchased the execution petition schedule property from Sri Mayanna (respondent No.2 in both the appeals) by a registered sale deed, dated 5.4.2006. The respondent No.2 had taken three months' time to vacate the execution petition schedule property and hand over its vacant possession to the respondent No.1. As the respondent No.2 did not keep up his promise, the respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.10179/2006 against the respondent No.2 seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to hand over the vacant possession and to pay the damages at the rate of `5,000/- per month from the date of the suit till he vacates. The respondent No.2 remained exparte. The Trial Court decreed the said suit directing the respondent No.2 to vacate the schedule property and hand over its vacant possession to the respondent No.1 within three months. The respondent No.1 filed Execution Petition No.434/2008. In the said execution proceedings, he has also filed I.A.No.12 invoking Order 21 Rule 97 for issuing the delivery warrant after noticing the obstruction of some persons. The grievance of the respondent No.1 in the execution proceedings is that the respondent No.2 has set up his children and elder brother to resist the dispossession. The children and elder brother of the respondent No.2 filed two separate applications - I.A.No.3 and 8 invoking Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC. They contended that they were deliberately not made parties to O.S.No.10179/06. They contended that the respondent No.2 is neither the absolute owner nor the exclusive possessor of the suit schedule property. They claimed that the suit schedule property belongs to their joint family. They also claimed that they have contributed the amounts towards the sale consideration of the property in question. Their I.A.Nos.3 and 8 were allowed by the Execution Court, by its order, dated 27.11.2008. However, the said orders were set aside by this Court, by its order, dated 4.11.2010 passed in W.P.Nos.31522/2009 and 33563/2009 filed by the first respondent. The matter was remitted back to the Execution Court to pass appropriate orders after affording opportunities to the parties. Thereafter, the decree-holder filed I.A.No.12 and the obstructors filed the objections separately. The obstructors also filed I.A.No.18 seeking the permission to lead further evidence, I.A.No.19 to re-open the case and I.A.No.20 for the production of documents.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the obstructor No.5 has filed R.F.A.No.1409/13 and obstructor Nos.1 to 3 have filed R.F.A.No.1487/13.

6. Sri S.Nagaraja, the learned counsel for the appellant in R.F.A.No.1409/2013 submits that the respondent No.1 is not a bonafide purchaser at all. The appellant had sent the letter, dated 21.12.2005 (Ex.D9) to the first respondent not to buy the execution petition schedule properties from Sri Mayanna, the respondent No.2 herein, as the same is the joint family property of the appellant and of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. He submits that the postal acknowledgement for receiving the letter at Ex.D9 by the first respondent is produced as Ex.D2. Similar letter also came to be sent by the third respondent Manjula Devi. The postal acknowledgement issued by the first respondent for having received the said letter from the third respondent is at Ex.D2. Despite all these, the first respondent went ahead and got the sale deed executed by the respondent No.2 on 05.04.2006.

24. The second question that falls for my consideration is whether the Execution Court has taken into account the circumstances of the case and applied its mind to the various documents placed on its record. A glance at the first respondent's written statement in the partition suit (O.S.No.4346/2006), which is produced and marked as Ex.D5 in the execution proceedings, shows that it was filed on 13.1.2006. One week thereafter, the respondent No.1 files O.S.No.10179/2006 for the recovery of possession. In his plaint, there is no whisper of the partition suit. Besides it is not known why the obstructors were not made parties to the first respondent's O.S.No.10179/2006 for the recovery of possession. It is all the more so when it cannot be said that the respondent No.2 alone was staying in the execution petition schedule property or that those who lived therein claim only under him. The Execution Court has observed that it is pertinent to note that except Ex.D12, the obstructors have not produced any documents to show that they are residing jointly. Ex.D11 and Ex.D12 are the election identity cards, which show that obstructor Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 have been residing in the execution petition schedule property. I am afraid the circumstances and the materials have not been considered by the Execution Court in their proper perspective.

25. The third question is whether the respondent No.1 has placed the clinching material for the enforcement of the possession decree notwithstanding the resistance of the obstructors. The obstructors have sent the letters (Ex.D9) to the respondent No.1 not to buy the execution petition schedule property. The evidence of the respondent No.1 (PW1) does not throw any light as to what steps he took on receiving the said letters. How he has satisfied himself that the respondent No.2 is the absolute owner of the execution petition schedule property is not forthcoming from his evidence.