Karnataka High Court
Sri.M. John Benatick vs Barani Chitra on 30 June, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22895
RFA No. 2290 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2290 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. M.JOHN BENATICK
S/O MICHEL DASS,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO.51 AND 52,
NEW CEMENT LANE,
AUSTIN TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 047.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C.PATTABI RAMAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BARANI CHITRA
D/O LATE M CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.8, OLD CEMENT LANE,
Digitally signed by AUSTIN TOWN,
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH BENGALURU-560047
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. YASHODA SARAVANAN
W/O M.SARAVANAN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/AT C/O
R.LINGAKUMAR,
NO. 24/5, 2ND CROSS,
CHAVARA CHURCH, EJIPURA,
BANGALORE-560 047.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURESH LOKRE., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHRAVAN.S.LOKRE., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:19.03.2025)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22895
RFA No. 2290 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF THE CPC, 1908.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS
UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.C. Pattabi Raman, counsel for the appellant and Sri.
Suresh Lokre., Senior counsel on behalf of Sri. Shravan S.
Lokre, for respondent No.1, appeared in person.
Though the appeal is listed today for admission, with the
consent of counsel for respective parties, it is heard.
2. For convenience's sake, the status and ranking of
the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial
Court.
3. This is an appeal from the Court of XXVIII Addl. City
Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit (CCH-29), Bengaluru.
4. The short facts are these.
The plaintiff, Bharani Chitra, filed a suit against the
defendant, namely Yashoda Saravanan, seeking the relief of
NC: 2025:KHC:22895
HC-KAR
specific performance. The Trial Court vide Judgment and
Decree dated 18.07.2014 decreed the suit and directed the
defendant to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- within a month from the date of the
Judgment, failing which the plaintiff was to secure the sale
deed through the Court office. The defendant did not come
forward to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff filed an
Execution Petition in Ex. No.25022/2015. The Executing Court
appointed a Court Commissioner, and a sale deed was executed
on 06.08.2016. When the Decree Holder went to the spot to
obtain possession of the suit schedule property through the
Court, the appellant - Mr.M.John Benetick filed an application
under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. An enquiry was held, and the
Executing Court vide order dated 16.11.2019 rejected the
application. Under these circumstances, the appellant has filed
the captioned appeal under Section 96 of CPC.
Counsel Sri.C.Pattabi Raman., for the appellant submits
that the order passed by the Executing Court is contrary to law
and opposed to the documentary and oral evidence on record.
NC: 2025:KHC:22895
HC-KAR
Next, he submits that the appellant is the absolute owner
of the property in question as he had purchased the same from
the original owner, Yashodha Saravanan, on 20.11.2010.
A further submission is made that the plaintiff has
suppressed the material facts and obtained the ex-parte decree
by playing fraud.
Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the order
of the Executing Court is untenable in law and hence, the same
may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.
Sri.Suresh Lokre., Senior counsel for the respondent
justified the order passed by the Executing Court.
Next, he submits that the Decree holder has taken steps
to execute the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court by filing
an Execution Petition.
A further submission is made that the Executing Court
appointed a Court Commissioner and executed the Sale Deed
on 06.08.2016.
NC: 2025:KHC:22895
HC-KAR
Senior counsel vehemently contends that the appellant
has no right to obstruct for taking possession of the property in
question.
Lastly, he submits that the appeal is devoid of merit and
the same may be dismissed. Counsel submits that a memo has
been filed furnishing the true copy of Reply Notice dated
16.09.2011 and the Rejoinder Notice dated 22.09.2011 and the
same may be placed on record.
Submission is noted. Memo along with true copy of the
documents is placed on record. Heard the arguments and
perused the appeal papers and the records with care.
5. The short point that would arise for consideration is
whether the order passed by the Executing Court requires
interference.
6. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require
reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates
to the obstruction application. Contending that he purchased
the property from the original owner Yashoda Saravanan on
20.11.2010, the appellant objected to the execution of the
NC: 2025:KHC:22895
HC-KAR
decree. The obstructor contends that the plaintiff obtained the
decree by playing fraud. In this Court also, he has adhered to
the said contention. Counsel Sri.C.Pattabi Raman, in presenting
his arguments, vehemently contends that the plaintiff issued a
legal notice on 29.06.2011 and the vendor replied to the notice
on 16.09.2011 through her advocate by giving a different
address. However, the plaintiff never sent the summons to the
said address.
By way of reply to this contention, Sri.Suresh Lokre.,
Senior counsel submits that a rejoinder was sent on
22.09.2011 to the reply notice, intimating that the agreement
holder has already initiated action seeking the relief of specific
performance in O.S.No.26419/2011 and also intimated the date
of hearing. He argued by saying that the vendor did not
respond to the rejoinder and did not appear in the suit.
Counsel, therefore, submits that the obstructor is not justified
in contending that the plaintiff obtained the decree by playing
fraud. A perusal of the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court
depicts that after the registration of the suit, the summons was
sent; the defendant remained absent; hence, she was placed
NC: 2025:KHC:22895
HC-KAR
ex parte. Moreover, the obstructor resisted the possession, and
the Executing Court rejected the contentions.
Furthermore, Order 21 Rule 97 allows the decree holder
to apply to the Executing Court when he or she faces resistance
or obstruction in obtaining possession of the property, i.e., the
subject matter of the decree. The purchaser, having bought the
property from the judgment debtor, is essentially stepping into
the shoes of the judgment debtor. Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC is
specifically for the decree holder to seek assistance in
executing the decree when faced with resistance or obstruction.
The purchaser, having acquired the property from the
judgment debtor, is considered a representative of the
judgment debtor and is bound by the decree. In the present
case, the obstructor has purchased the property from the
Judgment Debtor; hence, he is bound by the decree.
To conclude, I can say only this much that the Executing
Court in extenso referred to the material on record and rightly
rejected the application. I find no merit to admit the appeal.
The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:22895
HC-KAR
7. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is dismissed
at the stage of admission.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
