Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

c' "1. Whether the applicant/obstructor in LA.

filed under order XXI Rule 97 and 99 r/w. p section 151 of CPC and under Order XXI Rulef" . 110 and 101 of CPC is entitled for redeiiveiffiiof 9 possession of the schedule premises ?

2. What Order '? "

4. The Court below passe'd~._an o'r=der.a11'ovt/thjg'-'the:

application filed by the o'ostruct}o_rfi'S_mt=V._V Gii9ij"ar:1;i1g1_i§and directed the decree hoiderdt tog u"thvc:"obstructor in possession of the suit scheduIe:'property'*...Vv_order of the Court below is .

" LA, ti'ecE. XXI Rule 97 of and LA. No.1/"I .fi1ed"._urider 100 and 101 1'/W. sectioAn"--e15}ov of aliowed, directing the decree holder' put the obstructor in otV"th'e'V property dispossessed off, ' 1"withiii.two""mo11ths from the date of this order, the obstructor is entit.leQl to A enforce this order in accordance with law. "

E I

5. Sri. A.S. Mahesh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the decree holder purchased the property under a deed of 26.2.2004 from Sri. Chikkamuniyappa. Thereafter-,._:a b of rectification dated 12.08.2008 Was"JeHXeciute'd_ the description of the schedule it become the absolute owner of thelsiuit. sch'eduifi The judgment debtor was pospsietssrion portion the suit schedule property. mat is .the_'p'deVcre'e*._ho1der filed I-IRC No. 13/ 2006 his _Was:al1oxved by the Court below "7F'ee1iijg aggrieved, the judgment.iv'd'ebt.o:rj; as':*fa1so"-.tf;e obstructorf filed a revision. petiton be-me;ccigtfiin:im§}:;:§"":\io.'47/2007 3.,/id this Court disposed of utheb s.aid._rev_isiari petiton on 18.7.2007. The ...V,dec1'Q€A.;'..hoIde1' iS'A'Et._1'§tV'\/'fut owner of the suit schedule VHprop'e--rty avndp is entitled for possession of the same. The decree-.,has' b'eer;;"execut.ed and the possession has been talcenthby the decree holder. The obstructor under a deed of v19_.8.2'O06 claims to be the owner of the said property. the decree holder tithe first purchaser of the suit u' schedule property, the later right said to have been created in favour of the obstructor is subject to the right prev'iousl.y'»o. created in favour of t.he decree holder. The1*efo.:*e,i'_pth_e'if' obstructor has no right, title or interest what"

--Vpu1'chuasedAaby the decree holder as per the sale deed dated "'V.2t3;'2v;2Q0%lV"was only a site measuring 35 ft. E3ast--West and l\iorth--So'uth consisting of a small AC sheet roofed ls property was amended so as to bring it in conformity with the description in the eviction petition. On the other hand, the obstructor had purchased the property from» Chikkarnuniyappa, through his power of attorney Sri. Narayanappa. The said Narayanappa, after of the said property had delivered posselssionjz property in favour of the obstructor. 'of sale deed was rectified by a de.e:d'~.V_of rectili'c.ati'on"'~--dated 22.8.2006. The property desc1'ib:ed-- salel'd'ced..o§f the obstructor dated 19.8.2006 ;dyt§h_e property purchased as measuring 40' :E:'ass5t~_WestVll40 ft. north- south anclloy..a;"s?ieeld*fi.;of rectitlica,ti'o1'1-dated 22.8.2006, the schedule the attended so as to include the construetionl'ti--ny~L.he suit blpijoperty as 3 sq. cement sheet .-vt.roofed'~i:3ou0se. Thiis,sV__thyev obstructer was in possession of lWthe;prope.ijty.yinyher own right under the deed of sale dated 'lll.'5i*herel'o:'e, the question of dispossessing her ~under.l"tlf1e*VAaguise of the execution of the order in HRC "ji*'1§).'r1s/_20tj'6 dated 16.12.2006 does not arise. 11. is further

C

8. As has been noticed above, the decree holder filed the eviction petition against the judgment debtoVrlel.i_n*._V HRC No.13/2006 for his eviction under the the Act. in the statement of objections to it petiton, the judgment debtor has sgtatedylthat he tenant under Narayanappa and, that he had vaczited and handed over the Vacant possessioieyilyiof the said favour of Narayariappa i\/iarchfl2005 itself. He has denied and tenant between The Cg-mt below has V.-16.12.2006. The judginent,c,i'eb.to:r;ly.asl*failso"jl.the obstiwicter filed a revision. petition this Court has disposed of the i*eVisl1-arr .petitoA1:_'l1SZ'/.2007 observing that the _.v.ObSJ[I'LEC3'J§OI' "{32"" pe"Eiti,o_oev;' in the revision petition) can Vprotercty her poi:-4se*ssion in accordance with law. Liberty was to oizstructor to pursue the application filed by V her unde1"'*--l(:f).r'Cier 2} Rule 97 of CPC before the Elxecutzirig l The Execution case was filed by the decree holder i9;'l2.2007 and delivery warrant was issued on in 2.1.2008. Finally, the decree was executed on 14.1.2008. Thereafter, the obstructor filed two applications LA. Nos.5 and 6 under Order 21 Rules 97 and 99 and under ()rdec1:2_1i_"i._V_ Rules 100 and 101. of cpc for adjudication of he;f"':4-igijtsg and to restore possession of the property;---».«E111' applications, the obstructor has s=tate:d.ybt?hat hi purchased the property on 19,i'5.,p}_986V"and t11a,t"u'd'sxhe'_ it been in possession of the propertyeeiin her ow.nrright:':§ The said contention has beend._4_d'enie.'VcA1 byvt"t--hVe,vde.ci'ee holder by fiiing objections. The obstr_uctor as witness No.1. In her e;Xaii';pin'ation ir1=':c11'ief.,.' ':si1e___has stated that C1iikkamaniy'apf3a, -owne'r'oi t'hev--property had executed general power of attVo'rney_4Vbi'1a__"iayour of her husband dated 19.5.1986 aundlhve yirasAe.a1'"so:..'put in possession of the said .-v..prope»i'ty.v Tier hus-bandyvhas put up construction thereon dtand"'l1as.._taken">power connection from the KEB. Her soldttdthe property by executing the sale deed