(1.) THE respondent/decree-holder was granted 4 acres 15 guntas of land in Sy. No. 33 of Channasandra Village, by the Government and he was entitled to the fruits in the trees in the said land as well as the right to remove the dried and fallen branches of the trees. When the said right of his was sought to be interfered with by the petitioner he filed Original suit No. 542 of 1975 for a decree of permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with his enjoyment of the said rights in the suit schedule property. The defendant set up a defence that out of the total extent of 4 acres 15 guntas he is in possession of, 1 acre 20 guntas of the said survey number and the plaintiff has not right to the said portion. Thereafter the plaintiff sought for amendment of the plaint seeking relief of possession of 1 acre 20 guntas which the defendant claim to be in possession. After contest the said suit came to be decreed and a decree for possession was granted. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the defendant preferred an appeal R. A. No. 69 of 1981 which also came to be dismissed on merits. The second appeal R. S. A. No. 848 of 1991 preferred in this Court also came to be dismissed.
(2.) IT is thereafter decree-holder sought to execute the decree for possession in Execution No. 66 of 1992. The judgment-debtor entered appearance and objected the execution of the decree. After over-ruling the objections the Court ordered issue of delivery warrant. The decree-holder was put in possession of the said area measuring 1 acre 26 guntas in pursuance of the decree and the bailiff submitted a report to the court stating that possession has been delivered. The decree-holder accepted the said delivery of possession and requested the Court to enter full satisfaction. It is at that stage the judgment-debtor filed an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code requesting the Court to hold an enquiry as regards the execution and satisfaction of the decree in the above case and hold that the decree-holder has not been put in possession and the decree is not satisfied. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application he has categorically stated that on 20-6-1995 the decree-holder appears to have taken delivery of possession of the execution petition schedule property through Court from the judgment-debtor but the judgment-debtor emphatically denies the said fact. Subsequently, delivery receipt and other proceedings drawn by the court bailiff are concocted and got up for the purpose of this case. There was no actual delivery. Hence the entire delivery proceedings is liable to be treated as illegal. To deliver 1 acre 26 guntas of land no survey or demarcation was done nor any such sketch was shown to the plaintiff. Therefore, he wants an enquiry to be held regarding due execution of the decree.
(3.) THE decree-holder filed his statement of objections contending that the delivery warrant issued by the Court has been duly executed by the bailiff Veerappa and he has given report that he has given possession to the decree-holder on 20-6-1995. The decree-holder has also given receipt acknowledging the fact that actual physical possession of the schedule property has been delivered to him in the presence of the witnesses in whose presence the mahazar has also been drawn at the spot. He has denied all other allegations made by the judgment-debtor and sought for dismissal of the application filed by the judgment-debtor. The Court below recorded evidence on the application and after considering oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the judgment-debtor has no right to raise objections about delivery of possession and procedure contemplated for delivery of possession has been followed and therefore there is valid delivery of possession of the suit property as per the decree. Therefore, the objections raised by the judgment-debtor were rejected and accepting the report of the bailiff and the fact that possession has been delivered the execution petition was closed. It is against this order the judgment-debtor has preferred the present revision.