- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1359 OF 2016 (RES) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1833 OF 2018 (RES) IN RFA No. 1359/2016 BETWEEN: SYED AKMAL PASHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, SON OF SYED RAOOF PASHA, R/AT NO.19, 2ND MAIN ROAD, ANKAPPA BLOCK, J.C.NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 006 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SHAKEERA BEGUM SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR'S 1. SRI. AMEER HUSSAIN S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT MAJOR IN AGE SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 2. SMT. AJMAL PARVEEN TAJ D/O AMEER HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 3. SRI. WAHEED UZ ZAMA S/O AMEER HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 4. SRI. ABDU HUSSAIN @ ATEEQ S/O AMEER HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 5. SRI. AFSOR HUSSAIN @ NATIQ S/O AMEER HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 6. SMT. ARJUMAND SHAHEEN TAJ D/O AMEER HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESPONDENT 1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.4/3(5) PEMME GOWDA BLOCK, 2ND CROSS, MUNIREDDY PALYA, BANGALORE - 560 006. 7. SYED ABDUL AZEEZ (DEAD) S/O SYED ABDUL RAZACK, MAJOR, NO.20, 1ST CROSS, R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE - 32. (DELETED) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P. USMAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOINUDDIN N, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6; VIDE ORDER DATED 02.02.2017, R2 TO R6 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF R1) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.07.2016 PASSED IN EX.NO. 1039/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. JUDGE AND XXXII ACMM, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED OBJECTOR UNDER ORDER 21 RULE, 97, 98, 99 AND 101 R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC., PRAYING TO HOLD AN ENQUIRY SO AS TO DETERMINE THE RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE OBJECTOR IN THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ALSO TO DISMISS THE EXECUTION PETITION SINCE JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS NOT IN A PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY. IN RFA NO. 1833/2018 BETWEEN: SYED AKMAL PASHA S/O SYED RAUF PASHA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT # 19, ANKAPPA BLOCK J.C. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 006 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 020. 2. AMEER HUSSAIN FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN OT THE APPELLANT MAJOR IN AGE (SINCE DECEASED REPTD. BY OTHER RESPONDENTS AS L.R'S) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 3. AJMAL PARVEEN TAJ D/O AMEER HUSSAIN MAJOR IN AGE 4. WAHEED UZ ZAMA S/O AMEER HUSSAIN MAJOR IN AGE 5. ABDUL HUSSAIN @ ATEEQ S/O AMEER HUSSAIN MAJOR IN AGE 6. AFSAR HUSSAIN @ NATIQ S/O AMEER HUSSAIN MAJOR IN AGE 7. ARJUMAND SHAHEEN TAJ D/O AMEER HUSSAIN MAJOR IN AGE ALL ARE RESIDING AT # 4/3(5), PEMME GOWDA BLOCK MUNIREDDYPALYA BENGALURU - 560 006. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. PRASHANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. P. USMAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOINUDDIN N, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R7) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.07.2018 PASSED IN OS.NO.6175/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by an objector aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2016 passed in Ex.No.1039/2011, on the file of VII Additional Judge and XXXII ACMM, Bengaluru. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to an order of eviction dated 22.03.2010 passed in HRC No.231/2003 filed by one Smt.Shakira Begum (since deceased), represented by her legal representatives, as landlords against one Sri.R.Syed Abdul Azeez S/o Syed Abdul Razack, which order was confirmed in HRRP 158/2010 by order dated 08.11.2010 passed by this Court, executing proceedings in Ex.No.1039/2011 has been initiated by the said legal representatives of the original petitioner, Smt. Shakira Begum. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 3. In the said execution proceeding, the objector / appellant herein has filed an application under Order XXI, Rules 97, 98, 99 and 101 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'the CPC'), objecting to the execution of the said order. In the affidavit accompanying the said application filed as above, the objector / appellant herein has contended that the subject property originally belonged to the judgment debtor, Sri.Syed Abdul Azeez, who in turn had purchased the same in terms of registered sale deed dated 12.03.1949. It is further contended that the judgment debtor had entered into an agreement of sale with the father of the objector namely Sri.Syed Rauf Pasha agreeing to sell the subject property and had received full sale consideration amount in terms of an agreement dated 22.09.1951. That in the meanwhile, the judgment debtor passed away and his legal representative namely one Sri.Ameer Hussain had executed a deed of sale dated 23.01.1959 in favour of one Smt.Fathima Bi, conveying the said property by playing fraud and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 misrepresentation without disclosing the agreement that had been entered into by the judgment debtor in favour of the father of the objector. It is further contended that, despite having received the entire sale consideration and having entered into the agreement dated 22.09.1951, the judgment debtor did not delivered the vacant physical possession of the property in favour of the father of the objector. Things stood thus when the aforesaid Eviction petition in HRC No.231/2003 came to be filed, which resulted in an order of eviction, later confirmed in the HRRP proceedings, as noted above. That on learning about the same, a panchayat was convened between the objector, legal representatives of the decree holder as well as the legal representatives of the judgment debtor to resolve the dispute. In pursuant to which, the matter was resolved and the objector / appellant paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- by way of cash to the legal representatives of the decree holder as well as to the judgment debtor in full and final settlement of the sale consideration amount. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 That he was assured that the decree holder would not take possession of the property pursuant to the decree passed. Believing such assurance, he made the aforesaid payment. That upon receipt of the same, the actual physical possession of the property was delivered to the objector on 25.03.2010. Ever since then, he has been residing in the scheduled property along with his family members and has obtained all the necessary documents such as ration card, electricity connection, telephone connection, Aadhaar card etc., Having paid the entire sale consideration, nothing further remains to be paid by him. Though the document was not registered, it constituted a full and final settlement of the sale transaction. Since he is in possession of the property, he apprehends dispossession at the hands of the decree holder in collusion with the judgment debtor. 4. The said application is contested by the decree holder, who has denied each and every averment made in the affidavit accompanying the application. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 5. Before the Executing Court, the objector examined himself as OBW1 and also examined two additional witnesses as OBW2 and OBW3. He produced fifteen (15) documents, which were marked as Ex.OB1 to Ex.OB15. On behalf of the decree holder, one witness was examined as PW1 and six (6) documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. 6. The trial Court framed the following points for its consideration: "1. Whether present application filed by an objector deserves to be allowed? 2. If so, what order?" and by the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. 7. Sri.Suresh.S.Lokre., learned Senior counsel appearing for the objector / appellant, vehemently submits that fraud, collusion and misrepresentation are writ large in the entire proceedings, inasmuch as, despite the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 objector / appellant having paid the entire sale consideration and having been put in physical possession of the property by both the decree holder and the judgment debtor, they are now attempting to misuse the order passed in the HRRP proceedings. He further submits that the objector/appellant has not derived his right, title and interest solely through the judgment debtor, but also through the decree holder, to whom a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid. He submits that the said payment was made by way of cheque. He further submits that witnesses have been examined to substantiate the transaction that took place between the decree holder and the judgment debtor on the one hand and the objector on the other. Therefore, he contends that the Executing Court has erred in not allowing the application. 8. On the other hand, Sri.P.Usman., learned counsel appearing for Sri.Moinuddin.N., for respondent Nos.2 to 6 (legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1) submits that in fact fraud has been played by the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 objector / appellant, who has falsely created the bank account and withdrawn the money without issuing any account payee cheque. He further submits that no such panchayat was ever convened after the passing of the decree. He contends that, in any event, the objector/appellant himself, in his application, has claimed to have derived his rights through and under the judgment debtor and, therefore, the application was not maintainable. Hence, he submits that the Executing Court has committed no error in rejecting the said application. He further submits that the document on the basis of which the objector/appellant claims his right is an unregistered document and, therefore, the Executing Court has rightly declined to take the same on record. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material available on record. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 10. The point that arises for consideration is: Whether the Executing Court is justified in rejecting the application filed by the objector / appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case? 11. Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the affidavit accompanying with the application filed by the objector / appellant under Order XXI Rule 97, 98, 99 and 101 read with Section 151 of the CPC read as follows: "I submit that the petition schedule property originally belonged to the Judgment Debtor herein, who had purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 12.03.1949 for valuable consideration from its vendor. I submit that the Judgment Debtor as absolute owner of the petition schedule property has entered into an Agreement of Sale with my father Sri Syed Rauf Pasha to sell the petition schedule property and the Judgment Debtor has executed a Full Settlement of Agreement of Sale dated 22.09.1951 in favour of my father by receiving the entire sale consideration from my father. The copy of the Full settlement of Agreement of Sale dated 22.09.1951 is herewith produced. 3. I submit that the L.R. of the deceased Judgment Debtor namely Sri Ameer Hussain has got managed to obtain a registered Sale Deed dated 23.01.1959 in favour of Smt. Fathima Bi, in respect of the petition schedule property by playing fraud and misrepresentation and on the basis of the said sale deed dated 23.01.1959 the said Ameer Hussain was making efforts to obtain the vacant possession of the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 petition schedule property from the Judgment Debtor, since the Judgment Debtor has not delivered the vacant possession of the petition schedule property in pursuance of the alleged sale deed dated 23.01.1959 and continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property, contending that he is the absolute owner of the same. I submit that the Judgment Debtor also failed to deliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule property to my father in pursuance of the above said full and final settlement Agreement of Sale dated 22.09.1951 and my father was also making franctic efforts to obtain the vacant possession of the petition schedule property to my father in pursuance of the above said full and final settlement Agreement of Sale dated 22.09.1951 and my father was also making frantic efforts to obtain the vacant possession of the petition schedule property from the Judgment Debtor." 12. It is clear from the affidavit that the objector/appellant has claimed that his father had entered into an agreement of sale, also referred to therein as a full settlement agreement, as far back as on 22.09.1951 with the judgment debtor. Paragraph No.3 of the affidavit extracted above further indicates that, despite the said agreement having been entered into, possession of the property was not delivered to his father. Though an allegation is made in the very same paragraph that the legal representative of the deceased judgment debtor - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 executed a deed of sale dated 23.01.1959 in favour of one Smt.Fathima Bi, the fact remains that the objector / appellant is claiming his right, title and interest through and under the judgment debtor. 13. The settled position of law governing consideration of an application under Order XXI, Rule 97, 98, 99 and 101 read with Section 151 of the CPC is that term "any person" referred to under the said provision excludes a person who claims right, title and interest through and under the judgment debtor. A person invoking the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 99 and 101 of the CPC must establish an independent right, title or interest in the property. If he claims any semblance of right through and under the judgment debtor, such an application is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. 14. The averments made in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit accompanying the application, extracted hereinabove, leave no manner of doubt that the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 objector/appellant has claimed his right, title and interest through and under the judgment debtor. The Executing Court has rightly taken note of this aspect of the matter in Paragraph No.26 of the impugned order and the same cannot be found fault with. 15. Paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed in support of the application by the objector/appellant further indicates that it is subsequent to the passing of the order in the HRC proceedings, as confirmed by this Court, that a panchayat is stated to have taken place between the objector on the one hand and the legal representatives of the decree holder as well as the legal representatives of the judgment debtor on the other. He claims that he has paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the legal representative of decree holder and Rs.5,00,000/- to the legal representatives of the judgment debtor. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the objector / appellant submits that the said payments were made through bank transaction; however, the same is totally denied by learned counsel appearing - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 for the respondents. Be that as it may, even if any such agreement or transaction had indeed taken place, same amounts to a completely new and different cause of action, same cannot be adjudicated under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 97, 98, 99 and 101 read with Section 151 of the CPC. Inasmuch as already noted above, the objector / appellant claims to have derived his right over the property pursuant to the agreement of the year 1959 said to have been entered into by his father with the judgment debtor. 16. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim or the counter-claim / objections raised thereto by the objector / appellant, this Court declines to interfere with the order passed by the Executing Court. 17. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that liberty may be reserved to the objector/appellant to pursue such remedy as may be available and permissible in accordance with - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 law. He further submits that, as the objector/appellant has been put in possession of the property and is presently enjoying the benefit of the interim protection granted by this Court, the said interim protection may be extended for a period of 90 days to enable him to seek appropriate relief in a properly constituted suit. 18. The said request made by the learned Senior counsel for the objector / appellant has been seriously opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 19. However, considering the fact situation of the matter and the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the objector/appellant it is hereby directed that the respondents shall not precipitate the matter for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 21. The Registry is directed to return the original documents to the appellant. The appellant is also at liberty to seek return of the original documents from the Executing Court, upon filing an appropriate application and subject to due verification and satisfaction of the concerned Court. 22. In view of the disposal of the present appeal, the other connected matter does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 17.03.2026 ORAL ORDER ON 'BEING SPOKEN TO' Referring to submissions recorded at paragraph 17 of the judgment dated 20.02.2026, learned Senior counsel for appellant submits an express observation be made reserving liberty to the appellant to seek appropriate relief. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if such an express order is passed, there is likelihood of same being misconstrued as apparently the claim is barred by limitation. 3. Be that as it is. If a party to a litigation is entitled for any relief, he can always pursue the same strictly in accordance with law and no express liberty is required. 4. Nonetheless, since the appellant is seeking an express order reserving liberty, appellant is at liberty to seek such remedy as may be available and permissible under law subject to all just exceptions. It is made clear this shall not be MGSKJ: - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10717 RFA No. 1359 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 1833 of 2018 construed as appellant being given any concession on any contentious issue in any manner whatsoever. All contentions kept open to be urged in the event of appellant seeking remedy as sought for. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1