GAT NAGAMMA Vs. HARDAR BAHUBALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 20-8-1987 passed in Execution Petition No. 48 of 1985 on the file of the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Raichur, over-ruling the objections of Judgment-debtors as to the executability of the decree.

(2.) One Nagamma owner of a house situated in Somwarpeth locality of Raichur City mortgaged the same in the year 1956 for a consideration of Rs. 400/- by executing a registered simple mortgage deed in favour of the 1st respondent. However, the deed was executed in the name of Bagodi Konayya Shetty as Benami. The respondent-1 along with the said Bagodi Konayya Shetty filed O.S.No. 110 of 1964 against Nagamma for recovery of the mortgage amount by sale of the mortgaged property. A compromise decree was passed in the said suit and Nagamma was directed to pay the decretal amount through instalments. Since she failed to pay the amount as stipulated in the decree, respondent-1 filed an Execution Case No. 24/3/65 seeking the sale of the mortgaged property. Respondent-1 decree holder with the permission of the Court purchased the said property, and the sale was confirmed. Sale certificate was also issued in favour of respondent-1. Respondent-1 thereafter filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 95 C.P.C, for delivery of possession and that petition was numbered as Execution Case No. 53 of 1968. But the execution case was dismissed on a memo filed on behalf of respondent-1 not pressing the same without prejudice to his right to file a fresh suit.

(3.) Rospondent-1 filed a fresh suit for possession of the suit property purchased by him in auction sale on the basis of the sale certificate issued in O.S.96 of 1978 and the said suit was decreed on 30-1-19980. Regular Appeal filed by Nagamma also came to be dismissed on 9-4-1984. The decree passed in O.S.96 of 1978 became final and thereafter respondent-1 filed Execution Petition No. 48/1985 seeking possession of the property purchased in Court auction. During the pendency of this Execution Petition, Nagamma expired and respondent-1 impleaded the revision petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 as legal representatives of Nagamma.