Karnataka High Court
Siddappa @ Shiddappa vs Yamanappa on 12 August, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4578
RFA No. 200231 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 200231 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SIDDAPPA @ SHIDDAPPA
S/O BEERAPPA BEERAGOUND,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DHAVALAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VISHWAKARAMARAJ NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA 1. YAMANAPPA
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI S/O RAJAPPA KANAKAL,
Location: HIGH AGE: 68 YEARS,
COURT OF OCC: AGRICULTURE,
KARNATAKA
R/O: HALLUR VILLAGE,
TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
2. SIDDAPPA
S/O SHIVAPPA BELLIHAL,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DHAVALAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST; VIJAYAPUR.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4578
RFA No. 200231 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 AND ORDER 41 OF CPC, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE
ORDER IMPUGNED ON I.A 1 FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 97
OF CPC DATED 12-12-2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MUDDEBIHAL IN EP NO. 2/2015 AND ALLOW THE
I.A N.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 97 OF CPC DATED 12-
12-2024 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MUDDEBIHAL
IN EP NO. 2/2015 AND ETC.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant -JDR No.2
praying to set aside the order dated 12.12.2024 passed in
EP No.2/2025 on IA No.I filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of
CPC, whereunder, IA No.I filed by appellant has been
dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
3. Respondent No.1 has filed suit against
respondent No.2 for relief of specific performance of sale
agreement dated 22.05.2002 in O.S. No.91/2006. The
said suit has been contested by respondent No.2 and it
came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated
25.07.2011 wherein respondent No.2 has been directed to
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4578
HC-KAR
execute sale deed in favor of respondent No.1 by receiving
balance sale consideration within a period of 06 months
failing which respondent No.1 is at liberty to get appointed
Court Commissioner to execute sale deed infavor of
respondent No.1.
4. Respondent No.1 has filed Execution Petition
No.2/2025 to execute decree passed in O.S. No.91/2006.
The appellant herein has been arrayed as JDR No.2 in the
said Execution Petition as he purchased the suit property
during pendency of O.S.No.91/2006. The appellant in said
E.P.No.2/2025 has filed IA No.I under Order XXI Rule 97
of CPC praying to declare him as absolute owner of suit
property and restraining respondent No.1 (decree holder)
from obstructing peaceful possession of the appellant -JDR
No.2. The said application has been contested by
respondent No.1. The Executing Court has rejected the
said application by the impugned order dated 12.12.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would
contend that the appellant is bonafide purchaser of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4578
HC-KAR
suit property and he is in possession of the suit property.
He further submits that if the sale deed is executed in
favor of respondent No.1, respondent No.1 may take
possession of the suit property from the appellant. He
pointed observation made by Executing Court that there is
no obstruction from DHr to the possession of JDR No.2.
6. The appellant purchased the suit property on
29.09.2007 from respondent No.2. The suit was filed by
respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 on 25.09.2006
and it came to disposed of on 25.07.2011. Considering the
same, the appellant has purchased the suit property
during pendency of O.S.No.91/2006. Therefore, the
appellant is lis pendens purchaser of the suit property. As
per provisions contained under Section 52 of Transfer of
Property Act, lis pendens purchaser is bound by decree
passed in the suit.
7. The appellant is stepping into shoes of
respondent No.2 as he has purchased suit property from
the respondent No.2. The appellant has no independent
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4578
HC-KAR
right to that of respondent No.2 to obstruct the execution
case filed by respondent No.1 as obstructer under Order
XXI Rule 97 of CPC. The Executing Court cannot enquire
into whether the appellant is bonafide purchaser and he
had no knowledge of pendency of suit property in the
Execution proceedings. The Executing Court cannot go
beyond the decree passed in the suit. Considering the said
aspect, the Executing Court has rejected the application
filed by the appellant under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC.
8. Considering all these aspects, there are no
grounds to admit this appeal. Hence, this appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP
