- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15070 RFA No. 1584 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1584 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. CHETHAN V S/O LATE VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO. 121/1, 7TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE R. MUNIYAPPA , AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. SMT. R.M. BHAGYALAKSHMI D/O LATE R. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 3. SRI. R.M. LOKESH S/O LATE R. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 4. R.M. MANJULA D/O LATE R. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.82/1 I.T.I. LAYOUT, 7TH CROSS, 1ST PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15070 RFA No. 1584 of 2023 5. SMT. VASANTHA G RAMARATHNAM W/O LATE G. RAMARATHNAM, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, 6. SMT. NANDINI G. RAMARATHNAM D/O LATE G. RAMARATHNAM, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 7. SRI. NARESH G RAMARATHNAM S/O LATE G RAMARATHNAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 5 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT FLAT NO.302/38, K.R. ROAD, OPP. M.N. KRISHNARAO PARK BASAVANAGUDI BENGLAURU-560 004 AND ALSO AVAILABLE AT NO.145, BHASHYAM ROAD, S.K.R. MARKET COTTONPET MAIN ROAD, COTTONPET, BENGALURU-560 053 8. SRI. SADANAND S/O NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, CANTEEN PROPRIETOR SUPER TALKIES NO.145, BHASHYAM ROAD S.K.R. MARKET, COTTONPET MAIN ROAD, COTTONPET BENGALURU-560 053 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2023 PASSED ON I.A. IN EX.NO.66/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15070 RFA No. 1584 of 2023 JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 58 AND 97 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the obstructor in Ex.P No.66/2022 on the file of the LII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru(CCH-53), challenging the order dated 24.06.2023 by which his application under Order XXI Rule 58 and 97 read with Section 151 of CPC was rejected. 2. The respondents No.1 to 4 filed a suit for ejectment in S.C No.1056/2014, which was decreed on 28.02.2017. Thereafter, they filed Ex.P No.1508/2018 which was later re- numbered as Ex.P.No.66/2022. The appellant filed an application under Order XXI Rule 58 and 97 r/w Section 151 of CPC contending that the owner of the property, that was the subject matter of S.C No.1056/2014, had bequeathed the property to his grandmother in terms of a Will dated 29.04.2006 and that his grandmother died on 03.02.2012 and hence, it was inherited by him and his siblings, who executed a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15070 RFA No. 1584 of 2023 release deed dated 21.12.2015 in his favour. Likewise, the grandchildren of the beneficiary had also released their right over the property in question in terms of an affidavit dated 26.09.2014. 3. The obstruction application was set down for trial. The appellant was examined as O.W.1 and he marked Exhibits P1 to P5. However, he did not subject himself for cross- examination and hence, his evidence was discarded. The Executing Court, after considering the conduct of the appellant, held that the application under Order XXI Rule 58 and 97 of CPC was filed only to protract the execution petition. Consequently, it dismissed the same in terms of the order dated 24.06.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court. 4. Despite granting sufficient time, no attempt is made to comply the office objections. There is no representation for the appellant today. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3/caveator submits that the appellant had filed O.S No.6920/2016 for a declaration of his right over the property in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15070 RFA No. 1584 of 2023 question on the ground that he had inherited it from his grandmother in terms of a Will dated 29.04.2006 and that the legal heirs of his grandmother had executed a release deed dated 21.12.2015 while his siblings had executed a release deed dated 26.09.2014. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 contends that the said suit was dismissed on 01.06.2022. Therefore, this appeal does not survive for consideration. 7. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, this appeal stands dismissed as the suit filed by the appellant for substantive relief of declaration of title based on a Will was dismissed on 26.09.2022. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4