Karnataka High Court
Sri L Meganathan vs Sri A V Govindaiah on 3 September, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36028
RFA No. 1076 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1076 OF 2015 (RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI L MEGANATHAN
S/O P.LOGANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.5
4TH CROSS, PREM NIVAS ROAD,
BEHIND GANESHA TEMPLE,
KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
KACHARAKANAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560084
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.H.LOKANATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. SRI A V GOVINDAIAH
MALATESH S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAIAH
KC SINCE DEAD LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF
RESPONDENT NO.1
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 1(a) SMT.PUSHPA
KARNATAKA D/O LATE A.V.GOVINDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
1(b) SMT.KAVITHA
D/O LATE A.V.GOVINDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
1(c) SMT.VIMALA
D/O LATE A.V.GOVINDAIAH
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36028
RFA No. 1076 of 2015
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
1(d) SMT.MANJULA
D/O LATE A.V.GOVINDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
HONNAGHANAHATTI VILLAGE
PIPELINE ROAD,
OPP. GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL
TAVAREKERE HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 562130
2. M.N.BALU
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.2047/A,
4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, PRASHANTHNAGAR,
BANGALORE-560079
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA.P, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (A TO D);
SMT.S.SUMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER LXIII RULE 1 R/W
SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2015
PASSED IN I.A.NO.2 IN EXECUTION No.1236/2006 ON THE
FILE OF THE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY
(C.C.H.NO.8), DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.2 IN THE ABOVE
EXECUTION PETITION UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 99 R/W
SECTION 151 OF C.P.C.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36028
RFA No. 1076 of 2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri K.H. Lokanath for the appellant, Sri Ravindra
P., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 (a) to (d) and
Smt. Sumathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of second
respondent. Appeal is filed by the objector in the execution
case No.1236/2006, whereby the application seeking objecting
the execution petition was dismissed by order dated
16.06.2015.
2. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present appeal are as under:
3. Sri M.N. Balu filed a suit in O.S.No.1279/2004
against A.V. Govindaiah. Said suit on contest, came to be
decreed. To execute the decree of specific performance,
execution case No.1236/2006 was filed by the decree holder.
When the matter was pending, the present appellant namely
Sri L. Meghanathan S/o P. Lokanathan filed an application
under Order 21 Rule 99 r/w Section 151 CPC to register the
applicant as an objector and participation in execution
proceedings.
4. In the application it is contended that there was a
registered agreement executed by the judgment debtor in his
NC: 2024:KHC:36028
favour dated 15.07.2013 in respect of suit schedule property
for sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. The judgment debtor
did not execute the sale deed and clandestinely entered into
another agreement with the plaintiff and when the suit was
pending, defendant retraced his steps and executed a
registered sale deed in favour of the applicant on 07.08.2013,
whereby the right, title and interest in respect of the property
in subject matter of execution No.1236/2006 is in favour of the
objector. Therefore, he had every right to object the execution
proceedings.
5. I.A.No.3 was also filed by the very same objector
under Section 151 CPC, requesting the Court to recall the order
passed in favour of decree holder.
6. Both the applications were resisted by the decree
holder by filing detailed objection statement contending that if
the objector is claiming under the judgment debtor., he is
bound by the decree and if there is any independent right that
could be enquired into by the executing Court and therefore,
sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. Learned Judge heard the parties on I.A.Nos.2 and 3
and noted that there was no independent claim laid by the
NC: 2024:KHC:36028
objector, but was claiming under the judgment debtor and the
sale deed has taken place when the pendency of the suit,
dismissed both the applications. Against which the present
appeal is filed.
8. Sri Lokanath K.H., learned counsel for the appellant
reiterating the grounds of appeal memorandum contended that
trial Court failed to note that there is already a registered sale
deed in favour of the appellant and therefore, they could not
have been second direction to execute the second sale deed in
favour of the decree holder by the judgment debtor and
wrongly dismissed the application filed by the objector,
resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the
appeal.
9. Per contra, Smt. Sumathi, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of second respondent supports the
impugned order. Counsel for legal representatives of the first
respondent submits that Court may pass suitable orders having
regard to the attendant circumstances.
10. He also submits that it is the fact that the judgment
debtor entered into agreement under the objector earlier and
when he did not choose to get the sale deed executed, left with
NC: 2024:KHC:36028
no alternative, he had to enter into the agreement with the
decree holder and he is bound by the orders that could be
passed in this appeal.
11. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal of the material on record, there is
no dispute that the objector had a registered sale agreement in
his favour executed by the original judgment debtor. There is
no dispute that original judgment debtor had received some
advance consideration in respect of the same. However, the
objector did not choose to seek the specific enforcement of said
agreement which ultimately compel the judgment debtor to
enter into agreement with the decree holder which was subject
matter of the suit in O.S.No.1279/2004.
13. Plaintiff before entering into an agreement said to
have issued a public notice in 'Sanjevani' Newspaper and no
objections were received. Thereafter he has entered into
agreement. Therefore, he is to be construed as a bona fide
purchaser for value. These aspects of the matter has been
taken note of by the learned Trial Judge while decreeing the
suit. In the execution petition when the direction was issued by
NC: 2024:KHC:36028
the Court for execution of the sale deed in favour of the decree
holder, objector filed an application stating that already a sale
deed is executed by the judgment debtor in his favour on
07.08.2003 and sought for objecting the decree.
14. Judgment debtor being a party to the suit in
O.S.No.1279/2004 and suffered a decree, ought not to have
allowed the executing Court to proceed with the execution.
15. Further, judgment debtor did not whisper a single
word before the Court when O.S.No.1279/2004 was being
adjudicated having sold the property to the objector on
07.08.2013.
16. Be it what it may, the rights of the objectors, if any,
is subject to the result of the suit in view of the doctrine of lis
pendens.
17. It is settled principles of law, in an enquiry under
Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC, is only to the extent of whether any
independent right is available for the objector to object the
execution proceedings.
18. In the case on hand, admittedly, the objector is
claiming his right over the property under the judgment debtor
NC: 2024:KHC:36028
and therefore, the learned Trial Judge in executing Court was
justified in rejecting the applications filed by the objector.
19. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good
reasons to interfere with the order of the learned Trial Judge in
the execution.
Hence, following:
ORDER
Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
However, dismissal of the present appeal shall not come
in the way of the objector working out the remedy before the
appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
