- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34972 RFA No. 1178 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1178 OF 2026 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. AYESHA BEE W/O. MOHAMMED SALEEM AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT. NO.19, 2ND CROSS, SULTHAN NAGAR, SULTHANJI GUNTA ROAD, SHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 051. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARAYAN M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SURESH MELWANI S/O. SHAM MELWANI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2. ANUSKA MELWANI, W/O. SURESH MELWANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS BOTH R/AT NO.52, OPELNEST APARTMENTS 2ND FLOOR, FLAT NO.201, ROBERTSON STREET, Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34972 RFA No. 1178 of 2026 BENGALURU – 560 005. 3. MASOOD PASHA S/O. MOHAMMAD PASHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT. NO.19 AND 74, MAKKAN ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 001. 4. UMAR SHARIF S/O. NOOR MOHAMMAD SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT. NO.74, MAKKAN ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 001. AND ALSO AT: NO. 335, 3RD CROSS, CHINA BAZAR STREET, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGLAURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARIPRASAD Y, ADVOCATE R1 & R2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.6 IN EX.PETITION NO.1450/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-63), BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34972 RFA No. 1178 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The third-party applicant/objector, who had filed an application under Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short ‘CPC’) has preferred the present Regular First Appeal questioning the order dated 02.03.2026 passed in Execution Petition No. 1450/2017 by the learned LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said application came to be dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The respondents No.1 and 2 who were the plaintiffs in O.S No.7899/2015 filed a suit for ejectment against respondents No.3 and 4 who were defendants seeking a direction for the defendants to vacate, deliver and handover the vacant possession - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34972 RFA No. 1178 of 2026 of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. The said suit came to be decreed directing the defendants to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiffs who are decree holders. The plaintiffs then filed execution petition in Ex.P No.1450/2017 to execute the decree and recover possession. In the said execution proceedings, the appellant herein entered appearance as a third-party objector and filed an application under Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 of CPC resisting the execution of the decree on the ground that she is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property, having derived title through her mother, Meharunnisa. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/obstructor submitted that the appellant is the daughter of Meharunnisa, who acquired title to the suit schedule property from her brother, Iqbal Sheriff, by virtue of a release deed dated 24.04.2007. It is further - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34972 RFA No. 1178 of 2026 submitted that Iqbal Sheriff had derived title to the property from his brother, Nissar Ahmed, who died unmarried. Therefore, the appellant being her daughter is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property and filed the application objecting to the execution of the decree. 5. It is further submitted that the appellant has a legitimate 1/3rd share in the suit property and is in constructive possession over the suit property. Therefore, she has every right as a third party objector to resist the execution of the decree. However, the executing Court without considering this aspect has erroneously dismissed the application. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the appeal be allowed and the order passed by the executing court dismissing the obstruction application be set aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34972 RFA No. 1178 of 2026 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs, who are the decree holders, submitted that the plaintiffs/decree holders, who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the present appeal, have purchased the suit schedule property from one Anjum Pasha. 7. It is further submitted that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one K. Krishnamurthy, who died intestate on 11.07.1978, leaving behind his wife and children as his legal heirs. Upon his demise, the said legal heirs have inherited the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the sons of said K. Krishnamurthy sold the suit schedule property in favour of one Nissar Ahmed alias Ghouse Sheriff and Anjum Pasha through registered sale deed dated 30.10.1993. The said Nissar Ahmed alias Ghouse Sheriff died intestate on 07.04.2004. He was unmarried and left behind his brother, Iqbal Sheriff, and his sister, Meharunnisa, as his only legal heirs. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34972 RFA No. 1178 of 2026 The said Iqbal Sheriff by deed of release dated 24.04.2007 has relinquished and released all his share, right, title, and interest in the suit schedule property in favour of his sister, Meharunnisa, who is the mother of the appellant. Therefore, Meharunnisa became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, said Meharunnissa executed a gift deed dated 06.03.2008 in favour of her son, Anjum Pasha, conveying her half share in the suit schedule property. The said Anjum Pasha sold the suit schedule property in favour of respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs, including the half share that had devolved upon and been acquired by him as per release deed dated 24.04.2007. Thus, respondents No.1 and 2 acquired valid right, title, and interest in the suit schedule property and became its absolute owners. Respondents No.3 and 4 are tenants in the suit schedule property. Therefore, respondents No.1 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34972 RFA No. 1178 of 2026 and 2 filed the suit for ejectment, and the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit. 8. It is further submitted that the appellant is the daughter of the Meharunissa through second husband of Meharunissa. Therefore the step children do not inherit from step parents. Therefore, when Iqbal Shariff has relinquished the share, then Meharunissa become absolute owner over the property. Therefore the property is not inheritable in favour of appellant as per Section 84 of the Mohammedan Law. Therefore when the suit is simply for ejectment and the appellant is claiming title of 1/3 rd share in the property. At the most, that would have adjudicated in another suit but not in this case. Therefore, submitted that third party application is nothing but vexatious, frivolous just for the sake of reconstruction. Hence, the application is not maintainable, which is correctly appreciated by the executing Court, and rightly dismissed the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34972 RFA No. 1178 of 2026 application which needs no interference. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal by confirming the order passed on the application. 9. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the decree for ejectment passed in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) requires interference by this Court? (ii) Whether, the appellant being the daughter of Meharunnissa, is entitled to put obstruction as a third-party objector by invoking the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 of CPC? 10. The appellant being a third-party objector, has filed an application under Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34972 RFA No. 1178 of 2026 the Code of Civil Procedure by contending that she is entitled to a 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property and, on that basis, has sought to obstruct the execution of the decree. 11. The undisputed facts of the case are that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Krishnamurthy, who died intestate. Upon his death, his wife and children succeeded to the property as his legal heirs. Thereafter, his wife and children jointly sold the suit schedule property to Nissar Ahmed alias Ghouse Sheriff and Anjum Pasha under a registered Sale Deed dated 30.10.1993. Nissar Ahmed alias Ghouse Sheriff died intestate on 07.04.2004, leaving behind his brother, Iqbal Sheriff, and his sister, Meharunnissa, as his only legal heirs. Subsequently, Iqbal Sheriff executed a deed of release relinquishing all his share, right, title, and interest in favour of his sister, Meharunnissa. Meharunnissa had two husbands. The appellant is the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34972 RFA No. 1178 of 2026 daughter of Meharunnissa through her second husband, namely, Syed Farooq. It is submitted that Meharunnissa after taking a Talaq from her first husband, has married second husband. This disputed fact to be tried in the suit. However, the fact remains that Meharunnissa remained as a stepmother of Ayesha Bee. 12. Thereafter, Iqbal Sheriff, by a deed of release dated 24.04.2007, relinquished and released all his right, title, and interest in the suit schedule property in favour of Meharunnissa. Consequently, Meharunnissa became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, Meharunnissa executed a gift deed dated 06.03.2008 in favour of her son, Anjum Pasha, born through her first husband, conveying her half share in the suit schedule property. Since Anjum Pasha was already the owner of the remaining half share, by virtue of the said gift deed he became the absolute owner of the entire suit schedule property. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34972 RFA No. 1178 of 2026 Thereafter, Anjum Pasha sold the suit schedule property in favour of respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs under a registered sale deed dated 19.08.2013. When this being the fact, the question that arises is, whether, in a suit for ejectment simpliciter, the appellant can obstruct the execution of the decree by invoking the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 of CPC. The further question is whether the execution of the decree extinguishes any alleged right claimed by the appellant. 13. Admittedly, the appellant is not in actual possession of the suit schedule property but at the most she claims constructive possession on the premise that she is a co-owner or a tenant-in-common. In such circumstances, the application filed by the appellant as a third-party objector under Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 of CPC is not maintainable. Further, when Meharunnissa acquired the suit schedule property by virtue of the deed of release executed by her - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34972 RFA No. 1178 of 2026 brother, Iqbal Sheriff, she became the absolute owner of suit property. The appellant, being the stepdaughter, is not entitled to claim any right of inheritance through a step parent under Section 84 of Mohammedan Law. When this being the fact, there is no error found in the order passed by the Executing Court in dismissing the application. Therefore, the Executing Court has rightly appreciated the facts and the law and has correctly dismissed the application which needs no interference. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(i) and (ii) in the Negative. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. If the appellant has any claim over the suit schedule property, liberty is reserved to the appellant to establish such right, title, or interest in accordance with law by instituting appropriate proceedings. However, such a claim cannot be adjudicated in the present application filed under Order XXI Rules 97 to - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34972 RFA No. 1178 of 2026 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2