Karnataka High Court
Shivalingappa vs Govindappa K on 13 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9088-DB
R.F.A. No.1964/2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1964/2025 (RES)
BETWEEN:
SHIVALINGAPPA
S/O LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO.95/4, V.T. STREET
Digitally signedKOTHANUR VILLAGE AND POST
by BENGALURU 560 077.
ARSHIFA BAHAR
KHANAM ...APPELLANT
HIGH COURT OF (BY SRI. RAMESH K, ADV.,)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. GOVINDAPPA .K
S/O KRISHNAPPA .L
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT. RAMPURA VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
VIRGONAGAR POST
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BANGALORE 560 049.
2. RAMESH KUMAR .K
S/O KRISHNAMRAJU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
NO.57, NEAR BDS GARDEN
GEDDALAHALLI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9088-DB
R.F.A. No.1964/2025
HC-KAR
KOTHANUR POST
BENGALUREU 560 077.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MURALI D, ADV., FOR C/R1
R2 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS D/W V.C.O. DTD:01.12.2025)
*******
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO
PASS AN ORDER CALLING FOR RECORDS IN EXECUTION
PETITITION NO.1052/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI
ADDL. CITY CIVIL COURT (CCH-11), BANGALORE AND PERUSE
THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 THEREIN
AND SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DISMISS THE
EXECUTION PETITION IN TOTO TOGETHER WITH GRANTING
SUCH RELIEF/S THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
06.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9088-DB
R.F.A. No.1964/2025
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') challenging the order dated 25.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.III in Ex.No.1052/2020 by the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (CCCH-11) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Execution Court').
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant was the owner of the property of K.Narayanapura Grama Panchayath bearing House list khatha No.89/95/4, formed in property No.4, bearing BBMP Khatha No.89/20/237/1/95/9. It is averred that out of the aforesaid property, the appellant sold a portion of the property in favour of respondent No.2- judgment debtor vide sale deed dated 11.09.2015. It is further averred that the respondent No.2-judgment debtor -4- NC: 2026:KHC:9088-DB R.F.A. No.1964/2025 HC-KAR entered into an agreement of sale dated 26.09.2016 with respondent No.1-decree holder. The respondent No.1- decree holder filed a suit in O.S.No.7803/2019 for specific performance against the respondent No.2-judgment debtor. The said suit came to be compromised and the respondent No.1-decree holder filed an execution petition for the execution of the said decree. In the said execution petition, the appellant filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking dismissal of the execution proceedings. The respondent No.1-decree holder opposed the said application by filing objections. The Execution Court, on considering the application and the objections, proceeded to dismiss the same. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.
3. Sri.Ramesh K, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Execution Court, without considering the law in its proper perspective has proceeded to pass the impugned order. It is submitted -5- NC: 2026:KHC:9088-DB R.F.A. No.1964/2025 HC-KAR that the appellant has retained a portion of the property in question as is evident from the revenue records/khatha and the respondent No.2-judgement debtor has fraudulently conveyed the whole property to the respondent No.1-decree holder and the same is sought to be executed in the execution petition, which is impermissible. It is further submitted that the Execution Court has failed to consider the fact that the decree has already been satisfied by way of execution of the sale deed by the respondent No.2-judgment debtor in favour of respondent No.1-decree holder and a relief beyond the said decree cannot be claimed in an execution petition. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal on merits.
4. Sri.Murali D, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-decree holder supports the impugned order of the Execution Court and submits that the Execution Court has rightly considered the fact that the appellant has not retained any portion of the property in the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the -6- NC: 2026:KHC:9088-DB R.F.A. No.1964/2025 HC-KAR Execution Court has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANICKAM ALIAS THANDAPANI AND ANR. Vs. VASANTHA1 and held that the relief of possession is ancillary to the decree for specific performance and need not be specifically claimed, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides.
6. The point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is "Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the Execution Court calls for any interference?"
1
AIR Online 2022 SC 682 -7- NC: 2026:KHC:9088-DB R.F.A. No.1964/2025 HC-KAR
7. The above point is answered in the negative for the following reasons:
a) The appellant was the owner of the property of K.Narayanapura Grama Panchayath bearing House list khatha No.89/95/4, formed in property No.4, bearing BBMP Khatha No.89/20/237/1/95/9. It is averred that out of the aforesaid property, the appellant sold a portion of the property measuring East-West 30 ft. and North-South 42 ft., consisting of 5 square RCC Roofed House in ground floor and 5 square RCC roofed house in first floor in favour of respondent No.2-judgment debtor vide sale deed dated 11.09.2015. It is further averred that the respondent No.2-judgment debtor signed an agreement of sale with respondent No.1-decree holder dated 26.09.2016 without mentioning the 5 square RCC roofed building on the ground floor as well as on the first floor. The respondent No.1-decree holder filed a suit for specific performance against the respondent No.2-judgment debtor in O.S.No.7803/2019. The said suit came to be -8- NC: 2026:KHC:9088-DB R.F.A. No.1964/2025 HC-KAR compromised and the respondent No.1-decree holder filed an execution petition for the execution of the said decree in Ex.No.1052/2020. In the said execution petition, the appellant filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking dismissal of the execution proceedings on the ground that the respondent No.2-judgment debtor, in collusion with the respondent No.1-decree holder has sold the whole property of the appellant including the portion retained by him and the same has also been conveyed by the sale deed dated 28.10.2021. It was also contended by the appellant that since no prayer for delivery of possession was claimed by the respondent No.1-decree holder, the same cannot be claimed at this stage. The respondent No.1-decree holder opposed the said application by filing objections. The Execution Court, on considering the application and the objections, proceeded to dismiss the same on the ground that there was no portion of the property retained by the appellant. The material on record clearly indicates that -9- NC: 2026:KHC:9088-DB R.F.A. No.1964/2025 HC-KAR the appellant has sold the entire property to the respondent No.2, which is the suit schedule property in the O.S.No.7803/2019. There is no iota of evidence placed before the Court to establish that the appellant has retained some portion of the land as claimed.
b) The schedule to the sale deed dated 11.09.2015 executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent No.2-judgment debtor and the schedule to the sale deed dated 28.10.2021 executed by the respondent No.2- judgment debtor in favour of the respondent No.1-decree holder, clearly tallies with each other and there is no excess land left out as asserted by the appellant. The property tax assessment extract produced by the appellant along with the memo cannot be the sole basis to come to the conclusion that the appellant has retained some portion of the land after execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2-judgment debtor. The Execution Court, considering the pleading scheduled to the plaint and the schedule to the sale deeds has clearly
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9088-DB R.F.A. No.1964/2025 HC-KAR recorded the finding that there is no excess land available to be claimed by the appellant. The Execution Court also made a finding with regard to the claim of possession and held that the relief of possession being ancillary to the relief of specific performance, the same need not be claimed separately and proceeded to dismiss the application. The said finding is based on the material placed before it and is neither perverse nor contrary to the material on record calling for interference in this appeal. The appellant has failed to establish that he has any semblance of right over the alleged portion of land. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The Execution Court has rightly recorded the finding with regard to the delivery of possession, as the said relief being ancillary to the main relief can be granted. The appellant, having failed to establish his right over the property in question, cannot have any locus with regard to the delivery of possession in the execution of a decree by the Execution Court.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9088-DB R.F.A. No.1964/2025 HC-KAR
8. For the aforementioned reasons, the regular first appeal is devoid of merits and the same is rejected.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3