(Prayer: This RFA is filed under Sec.96 of CPC., against the order dated 8.12.2025 passed on IA no.1 in ex no.2401/2024 on the file of c/c lvi additional city civil and sessions judge, Bengaluru., allowing the ia no.1 by the dhr under sec.151 of CPC.)

Oral Judgment:

1. The captioned appeal is filed by the appellants - Objectors assailing the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed in Ex.No.2401/2024 by the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-57) on the application tendered by the Objectors.

2. Though an objection was raised by the Office with regard to the maintainability of the appeal and though the specific statutory provision was not indicated in the objection tendered before the Executing Court, the objections filed to the main execution petition unmistakably satisfy the essential ingredients of Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the impugned order answers the description of a decree within the meaning of the Code, and the appeal is therefore maintainable before this Court.

3. Respondent No.1 – the Decree Holder instituted a suit in O.S.No.3159/2021 against respondent No.2 – the original Judgment Debtor seeking ejectment. The suit was founded on the assertion that the lease in favour of respondent No.2 had been terminated and that the Decree Holder was entitled to recover possession of the suit schedule property. During the trial, the present appellant No.1 – Objector was examined on behalf of respondent No.2–Tenant as D.W.2.

4. Upon appreciation of the evidence of the Decree Holder, the Judgment Debtor and D.W.2, the Trial Court decreed the suit recording a categorical finding that respondent No.2 was inducted as a tenant by respondent No.1. Accordingly, respondent No.2 was directed to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to respondent No.1 within a period of four months.

5. The said judgment and decree was carried in appeal by respondent No.2–Tenant in RFA No.2637/2024. This Court, by judgment and decree dated 21.08.2025, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree of eviction.

6. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the present appellant No.1, who had earlier deposed as D.W.2 in the suit, filed an application objecting to the execution. It was asserted that though the suit schedule property stands in the name of respondent No.1 – Decree Holder, the sale consideration was paid by the appellants– Objectors that the old structure was demolished and a new building was constructed in the year 2014 by investing substantial amounts and that the property is, therefore, a joint family ancestral property. It was further contended that a partition suit in O.S.No.74/2021 is pending in respect of the said property and therefore, respondent No.1 is not entitled to take possession. The Objectors also claimed that they had secured possession from respondent No.2–Tenant in the year 2021 and being in actual physical possession, the decree passed in O.S.No.3159/2021 is inexecutable. On these grounds, dismissal of the execution petition was sought. The Executing Court, however, rejected the said application.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants– Objectors reiterating the grounds urged vehemently contended that the Executing Court has acted contrary to the scheme envisaged under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC by summarily rejecting the objections without conducting an enquiry. It was urged that the procedure adopted is fundamentally flawed, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as the Objectors were denied an opportunity to substantiate their independent right, title and interest in the suit schedule property. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the following decisions:

                  (i)       V.V. Nageswara Rao, Hyderabad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.324/2017; and

                  (ii)      Paramound Industries v. C.M. Malliga, decided on 29.06.1990.

8. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 – Decree Holder drawing attention to the evidence of appellant No.1 examined as D.W.2 in O.S. No.3159/2021 stoutly opposed the appeal. Referring to paragraph No.12 of the judgment in the ejectment suit, it was submitted that D.W.1 had categorically admitted the absence of any documentary material to show that he was inducted as a tenant by the present Objectors. Learned counsel further relied upon the admissions elicited in the cross-examination of appellant No.1 as D.W.2, wherein it was unequivocally admitted that the father of respondent No.1 – namely, Chandrakanth Bakale had executed a Release Deed in the year 1969 in respect of the joint family properties and had separated from the family. It was, therefore, contended that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of respondent No.1 and that the mere pendency of a partition suit cannot be a valid ground to entertain objections in execution proceedings.

9. In the light of the rival submissions urged and upon perusal of the material on record, the following points arise for consideration:

                  i)        Whether the Executing Court was justified in summarily rejecting the Objectors’ application without affording them an opportunity to lead evidence as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC?

                  ii)       Whether the impugned order passed by the Executing Court suffers from perversity and warrants interference at the hands of this Court?

Findings on Point Nos.1 and 2;

10. Before this Court adverts to the claim of the appellants - Objectors, this Court deems it fit to extract para No.12 of the judgment rendered by the Trial Court in O.S.No.3159/2021. Para No.12 is extracted, which reads as under;

                  "12. On perusing the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 23.08.2010 it reveal that the said sale deed has been executed in the name of plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule property by Sri.N.Lakshminarayana. It is recited in the said document that the plaintiff has paid the consideration amount of Rs.24,00,000/ by way of cheques and pay orders. This show that the entire amount is paid by the plaintiff. Ex.P.2 is the rectification deed dated 21.09.2010 executed in favour of plaintiff. Ex.P.3 is the khata certificate and Ex.P.4 is the khata extract show that the khata of the suit schedule property is standing in the name of plaintiff. Ex.P.5 is the tax paid receipt and it show that the tax has been paid by the plaintiff. Though, the defendant has contended that D.W.2 Gopal Krishna Bakle is the owner of the suit schedule property, no document is produced by him to prove the same. Even D.W.2 has not produced any document to prove his ownership over the suit schedule property. Though, D.W.1 has got marked the certified copy of the plaint and order sheet in O.S.No.24/2021 marked as Ex.D.12 and 13, the said documents will not in any way help the defendant to prove his contention. The said documents reveal that a suit for partition has been filed against the plaintiff and others by D.W.2 and others and it is pending. The decree is not yet passed in favour of D.W.2. Further, D.W.1 has stated in his cross examination at page 7 that he has not produced any documents to show that D.W.2 Gopal Krishna Bakle is the owner of the suit schedule property. He has also admitted that he has not produced any document to show that he was the tenant under Gopal Krishna Bakle. At page 8 of his cross examination he has admitted that in the rental agreement it is shown that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. He has further stated that at the time of inducting him as a tenant, D.W.2 Gopal Krishna Bakle was present and even at the time of payment of security deposit he was present. Further, D.W.2 has admitted in his cross examination that the father of the plaintiff by name Chandrakanth Bakle has executed a release deed with respect to the joint family properties in the year 1969. In his cross examination at page 6, D.W.2 has admitted the khata extract pertaining to the suit schedule property is standing in the name of plaintiff. He has further admitted that the plaintiff had borrowed loan from Textile Cooperative bank with respect to the suit schedule property. He has also admitted that by borrowing loan, the plaintiff has constructed the building in the suit schedule property. At page 8 of his cross examination he has very clearly admitted that he has not produced any documents to show that he is the owner of the suit schedule property. Further, D.W.2 has also admitted in his cross examination that the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.529/2021 against him for eviction. As such, the documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 5 and also the admission of D.W.1 and 2 that the property is standing in the name of plaintiff clearly show that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. Unless and until the suit in O.S.No.24/2021 is decreed in favour of D.W.2, it cannot be said that he has right over the suit schedule property and he is the owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has placed sufficient materials to prove that he is the owner of the suit schedule property. Though, the defendant has contended that D.W.2 Gopal Krishna Bakle is the owner of the suit schedule property and he had leased the same to him on monthly rent of Rs.13,000/ p.m by receiving Rs.1,50,000/, there is no evidence to believe the same."

(emphasis supplied by me)

11. On a bare reading of the deposition, it is evident that he has further deposed that at the time of inducting him as a tenant, D.W.2 – Gopal Krishna Bakle was present and that D.W.2 was also present when the security deposit was paid. This evidence clearly establishes that the induction of the tenant was not a unilateral act, but was done openly and with the knowledge and participation of D.W.2.

12. Further, in the course of his cross-examination, D.W.2 has categorically admitted that the father of the plaintiff, namely Chandrakanth Bakle, had executed a release deed in respect of the joint family properties as far back as in the year 1969. This admission is of considerable significance, as it demolishes any claim of subsisting joint family rights over the suit schedule property and reinforces the plaintiff’s independent and exclusive title.

13. More importantly, in the cross-examination of D.W.2, he has unequivocally admitted that the khata extract pertaining to the suit schedule property stands in the name of the plaintiff. He has further admitted that the plaintiff had availed a loan from the Textile Co-operative Bank by offering the suit schedule property as security. He has also admitted that out of the said loan, the plaintiff has constructed the building on the suit schedule property. These admissions not only affirm the plaintiff’s ownership and dominion over the suit schedule property but also demonstrate that the plaintiff has exercised all incidents of ownership, including raising construction by investing his own funds.

14. In view of the aforesaid clear, categorical and unambiguous admissions made by D.W.2, coupled with the evidence regarding induction of the tenant in his presence, the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 stands admitted. Consequently, the appellants/cross- objectors are estopped from disputing the said jural relationship and any contention to the contrary is wholly untenable and liable to be rejected.

15. On a closer scrutiny of the findings recorded by the Trial Court, particularly at paragraph No.12 of the judgment in O.S.No.3159/2021, what clearly and unequivocally emerges is that the ejectment suit instituted by respondent No.1 – Decree Holder culminated in a categorical finding that respondent No.2 was inducted as a tenant exclusively by respondent No.1. The Trial Court, upon an elaborate appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, more particularly, the admissions elicited in the cross-examination of appellant No.1, who was examined as D.W.2 and on consideration of Exs.P.1 to P.5, has recorded a clear conclusion that the suit schedule property stands exclusively in the name of respondent No.1 as absolute owner. The Trial Court has further observed that unless appellant No.1 establishes his alleged right, title or interest in the pending partition suit, the claim set up by the Objectors cannot be examined or accepted in collateral proceedings.

16. The Trial Court has further held that respondent No.1 – Decree Holder successfully substantiated the jural relationship of landlord and tenant by establishing that respondent No.2 was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.13,000/- after receipt of a security deposit of Rs.1,50,000/-. On such findings, the suit in O.S. No.3159/2021 was decreed directing respondent No.2–Tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The said judgment and decree has attained finality, having been affirmed by this Court in RFA No.2637/2024.

17. The present contention urged by the appellants– Objectors that they were not parties to the ejectment suit and therefore, they are not bound by the decree is wholly misconceived. The record unmistakably discloses that appellant No.1 entered the witness box as D.W.2 in support of respondent No.2–Tenant thereby demonstrating complete awareness of the eviction proceedings initiated by respondent No.1. These vital admissions and circumstances have been duly noticed and relied upon by the Trial Court.

18. In the backdrop of these significant findings, the crucial question that arises for consideration is whether the Executing Court was justified in declining to relegate the parties to a full-fledged enquiry merely on the filing of objections by the Objectors under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that the mere filing of an application under Rule 97 does not ipso facto mandate the Executing Court to treat such objections as a suit and embark upon a detailed trial. Only in cases where the Objector sets up an independent and competing title, supported by prima facie documentary material demonstrating exclusive possession or a superior right, does the obligation arise on the Executing Court to conduct an adjudication by permitting parties to lead evidence.

19. In the case on hand, a careful reading of the objections filed by the appellants–Objectors reveals that their claim is founded solely on the assertion that the suit schedule property is joint family ancestral property and that a partition suit in O.S.No.74/2021 is pending adjudication. On this premise, it is contended that the eviction decree passed in O.S.No.3159/2021 is unenforceable. This contention is not only legally untenable but also fundamentally misconceived. Even assuming that the Objectors ultimately succeed in establishing their claim in the partition suit, delivery of possession to the Decree Holder pursuant to a valid and final eviction decree would not prejudice the rights of the Objectors, as such, possession would necessarily remain subject to the outcome of the partition proceedings.

20. The burden squarely lies on the Objectors to establish that the suit schedule property is joint family ancestral property notwithstanding the registered sale deed standing in the name of respondent No.1 – Decree Holder. The allegations that the sale consideration was paid by the Objectors and that substantial investments were made by them in reconstructing the building raise disputed questions of fact, which can be adjudicated only in the pending partition suit. Significantly, the Objectors have not produced any competing title deeds or prima facie material before the Executing Court to demonstrate a superior or independent right warranting a full-fledged enquiry.

21. Similarly, respondent No.1-decree holder is equally entitled to take benefit of admissions elicited in cross-examination of DW- 2 in the partition suit bearing O.S.No.3159/2021. In such circumstances, the Executing Court was fully justified in summarily rejecting the objections without relegating the parties to a protracted trial.

22. Further, the plea of the Objectors that they had secured possession of the suit schedule property in the year 2021 stands in direct conflict with the findings recorded in O.S.No.3159/2021, which have attained finality upon affirmation by this Court in RFA No.2637/2024. In view of the binding findings and the admissions made by appellant No.1 during trial, the said contention cannot be countenanced. It is also relevant to note that in the pending partition suit in O.S. No.74/2021, respondent No.1 – Decree Holder is restrained from alienating the property thereby ensuring preservation of the subject matter. The rights of the Objectors are thus adequately safeguarded and they are yet to substantiate their claim that the property forms part of the joint family estate.

23. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are clearly distinguishable on facts and have no application to the present case. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative and Point No.2 is answered in the Negative. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

                  ORDER

                  (i)       The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

                  (ii)      It is, however, clarified that this order shall not preclude or prejudice the appellants– Objectors from establishing their alleged rights, title and interest in the suit schedule property in the pending partition suit in O.S.No.74/2021 in accordance with law.