IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQEE" E» _ _
Dated this the 32" day at October, 2008
Before '
my HON'BLE we JUSHCE Hm: 'z1V,4;1>;.. 70' I .. « . j
Regular Fir-.stApp-!}1i_V919 f-2'tV?6*8V
Between:
Smt Shantha Krishna Kumar, S} fiy-rs'
Wfo Krislma Kumar . '
Rfa#73, 'Shantha', HMai:n -. :
IICmss, Udayanagax, Bzmglore 1G~~. . if = _ «V " Appellant
And: 2 1' M
1 5; as;
S A Kare;-xh, 75 hmabami {if Khatoon Bee
Rfa # 13, Yeilannrm' K051 's~.;:ee:.
Ulsoor, B9*?¥83'$'-'re 3 A "
~-- §iea<i:?by his LR.
_ Shit F,ad.ha.Bai as yrs
V ARIK Ra.dIua.Ni1aya, if 74 in Sy.No.73
Ugja}*-«imagar, Bangalore 16 Respondents
(By s;i>V’§sudev£i::,_,<¥;dv.£erR1)
Fix"§tAppea1s filed under 96, CPC praying to set asiée the order
[V ' ' .sm 19;-1,2003 in IA under 0 21, R 97, cm md remit the matter for freak
"enq:1i13I.en.–'such terms and cenditions.
" the followixixgz
Tlim First Appear coming can for Acixnission this day, the Court
i
virtue of the execution of the decree is without following the
contemplated under 0 21 R 97, CPC. Hence, this appeal.
Haard the counsel representing the partigés.
1: is the submission of me ap;se11gm*s ¢.op;::ae; amé;g' Q37
appeilam objector has; entered into an with and
she has been put in possession ¢-:1:r;i'_.Ei:*'_,t in of the
agreement, construction was put tum, she is in
occupation and of Vixnezest has to be
protected and no by the exécufing court
as maaadateai." " an order of injunction
which is opeféting; 'mags: Lffie.. It " %
Per c0ntr'a, counsel f'6.r ti:e.=. fiespondcnt has specifically contended
_that she fisgflté ant: i.s;_V_ViVfx ;)os$§:ssion of the Land. 133: fraudulent moms the
fe.ssp§.3§§ic1.e11E{?g;ot:vA'ca=£;ated a sale deed in his favour. In this regard, he also
injunction by filing a suit before the various courts
and did not sugzccsfiizi his attempt and by creating fimzdulent docuammts, he
-. sale” executed. Subsequentty in the suit filed against the 2″”
1′ ” the suit was decreed setting aside the sale deed said to have been
. V’ faveur of the 2′” respondent by the 1″ respondent and also submitted
JV,
that at my point of time plaintiff was in possession. Tlfm appeliant w3g m§fit_;
possession and she being the owner of the land was in possession;’_flimi;gl§. _
and also by virtue sf the direction given by this Court in I_2}.+’-.-=’«__t:ivi»r ”
714f1999, she has pumhased the property ~ ti}; exisiittg
land belong to her am: the property evgm it is’Vi3¢_l”<i'–by 'V
who claims that he was in possessidn and
the 2"'! respondent and the hct'éifi%_ of the
mattar which was aka the subject civii court. The
right of the gfiay, as against the 2"'
respondent and the appscilant has no right
whatsaoeverga" $116 it is prima facie evidant by
virtue of The 1" respondent is entitled for
taking possessiafifigf the ._ " ordered by the executing ctaurt by its
—ir;1pugj_a::§1;,oxde: andatlae of filing a separate suit for possession
a_Vga§:;1st–»t1V1¢ ahjectef not arise.
of the arguments advatmed, let me consider whether the
H u V’ ‘ the executing ceurt wquines intarference and, what oréer.
The court below has held that ‘the objector is in actuai possession af
VA ” suit praperty as an ageemcnt of sale holder from Karman. The decree
,g1J{;v
homer obtained a decree for possession against the said Kannan ,,
execution proceeding. The objector is c1aimm’ g her right ”
judgment debtor and she has no independent dg_§aI”‘0v:x }
Accordingly, it was of the View 0 21 R 97, ?f
persons who are ciaiming independent inteAfe3t__am_iu
judgment debtor. Ifthe objector ihg he
has no fight to maintain an appfiéatisgias came to be
dismissed. ‘% i ‘ NV V
It is ti) be “ih%V:§d€V’;k>r’36 passed by the trial
court in fawburigaf be-em made in favour of
the 2″‘ respondéiii set aside an the ground it being
a fraudulent ffotn respondent in his attempt as against
1* fi1§é:”a'”s:.:i: for mjtmaion and the same has been
disfiiifiaéd T._a”s’ “iiariier, even as claimed by the aypcllant herself,
‘ V’ she alsc.{IE1§dA«a ifijmwfim before the Civil Court. Even in the suit for
ggcyécifxc pexfmxfiagncé, an IA for temporary injunction is said to have been
to be rejeeted against which, MFA is .3133 said to be
separate suit for possessiem against her does not arise. The
appellant if any, is only against the 2″‘ respondent for co11seq;ie:I:ti;aiuT*T ”
and not against the I” respondent. I ._
Accardingly, appeal is disn1issed._