Karnataka High Court
D Balakullayappa S/O Late D Kullayappa vs Smt M Prabhavanthi W/O M Manjunatha on 21 August, 2025
-1-
RSA No. 100152/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REUGLAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100152 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. D. BALAKULLAYAPPA S/O. LATE D. KULLAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT 4TH WARD, PATEL NAGAR
HOSAPETE,
VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT-583101.
2. SMT. AMEENA W/O. HONNUR SAB
DAUGHTER OF LATE KULLAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
RESIDING AT 4TH WARD,
PATEL NAGAR,
HOSAPETE,
VIJAYNAGAR DISTRICT-583101.
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: HIGH
...APPELLANTS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.08.22
14:32:52 +0530
(BY SRI. PREETHAM CORREA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . SMT. M. PRABHAVANTHI W/O. M. MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
RESIDING AT OLD 5TH WARD (28TH WARD)
CHAPPARADAHALLI,
HOSAPETE TALUK,
VIJAYNAGAR DIST-583101.
2. D. RAJU @ D. RAJA SAB
S/O. LATE D. KULLAYAPPA
-2-
RSA No. 100152/2024
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT PATEL NAGAR,
3RD WARD,
HOSAPETE TALUK,
VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.V. RAMADAS. ADVOCATE AND
SRI. A. VEERANNA, ADVOCATES FOR R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
01.12.2023 PASSED BY III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BALLARI (SITTING IN HOSAPETE) IN
EX.A.NO.5001/2020 AND ALSO THE CONFIRMING THE ORDER
DATED 30.09.2020 PASSED BY ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C, HOSPETE IN EX.P.NO.88/2012. PASS SUCH
OTHER ORDER AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INETEST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
IN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 05.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
Appellants have preferred this appeal against the order
dated 30th September 2020 passed in Execution Petition No.88
of 2012 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hospete
(for short hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") on
Applications IA.11 and 12 filed by third party claimants under
Order XXI Rules 58, 97, 99 and 101, read with Section 151 of
Code of Civil Procedure, which is confirmed by the III Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete) (for
short hereinafter referred to as "the appellate Court") vide
judgment dated 01st December 2023, in Execution Appeal
No.5001 of 2020.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per the status and rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to appeal are that the Respondent
No.2-decree holder filed suit OS No.21 of 2013 seeking relief of
specific performance of contract against the respondent No.1-
judgment debtor. The said suit came to be dismissed whereby
it was ordered for a refund of earnest money. Against the
dismissal of the Suit, the decree holder filed appeal before this
court in RFA No.517 of 2007. This court, considering the
appeal on merits, by its judgment and decree dated 09th
February 2012, allowed the appeal by decreeing the suit. Being
aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the judgment debtor
filed special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
SLP No.30571 of 2012. The Special Leave Petition came to be
dismissed by the Supreme Court on 30th October 2012. Being
aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtor filed review
petition in RP No.1183 of 2013.
4. When things stood thus, the learned Additional Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, considering the applications of
the appellants on merits, dismissed the applications. Being
aggrieved by the dismissal of applications, the appellants
preferred Regular Execution Appeal in No.5001 of 2020 before
the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ballari. The appeal
came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 01st
December 2023. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment
and decree dated 01st December 2023, appellants are before
this court in this second appeal.
5. Sri Preetham Correa, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of Sri Shivaraj C Bellakki, would submit that the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as
well as the first appellate Court are erroneous and much
against the pleadings and evidence on record. He would
submit that both the courts have concurrently erred in not
appreciating the fact that appellants have claimed independent
right, and the decree sought to be executed, will affect their
rights as they have their undivided share. The decree for
specific performance would not bind them, and thus the
applications were not maintainable. He would further submit
that the Courts below have concurrently erred in not
appreciating the scope and ambit of Order XXI Rule 97 of Code
of Civil Procedure, which enables the appellants to intervene
and obstruct the execution of trial Court. The executing Court
should have given finding whether the suit property purchased
by deceased D Kullayappa in the name of his son who had just
attain majority and had no source of income, or was it an
absolute property of the judgment debtor. In the absence of
the said finding, it cannot be held that the appellants claim
under the judgment debtor so as to oust them from obstructing
the execution. On all these grounds, the learned Counsel
would seek to admit the appeal on the substantial question of
law questioning the orders passed by both the courts.
2. I have carefully examined the reasons assigned by the
trial Court as well as the appellate Court while dismissing
applications IA.11 and 12. Both the Courts have properly
appreciated the materials on record in accordance with
law and facts. I do not find any error or legal infirmities
in the impugned judgments and decree passed by the
trial Court, which is confirmed by the appellate Court.
Hence, the question of framing substantial question of
law does not arise. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) Appeal being devoid of merits, dismissed at the
stage of admission itself;
ii) Order dated 30th September 2020 passed by the
Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hospete on
Applications IA.11 and 12 filed by third party
claimants under Order XXI Rules 58, 97, 99 and
101, read with Section 151 of CPC in Execution
Petition No.88 of 2012, which is confirmed by the
III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ballari
(sitting at Hosapete) vide judgment dated 01st
December 2023, in Execution Appeal No.5001 of
2020, is confirmed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
ct-cmu
