M C SUDHAMANI Vs. MADAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this appeal is the applicant in Execution Case No. 36 of 1995 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial magistrate First Class, Channapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'civil judge' ). In this appeal, he has called in question the correctness of the order dated 21st June, 1997 made in Execution Case No. 36 of 1995 by the Civil Judge.

(2.) FEW facts which may be relevant for disposal of this appeal may be stated as hereunder.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent-decree holder had obtained the decree against the 1st respondent-judgment debtor in Original Suit No. 112 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Channapatna for a declaration possession in respect of property bearing No. 90/a. It is the case of the appellant that while executing the said decree in Execution No. 36 of 1995, the 2nd respondent in collusion with Court Ameen, in excess of the terms of the decree, dispossessed the appellant from the property which is the subject-matter of dispute in this appeal. Aggrieved by the said dispossession, the appellant had filed an application under order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'code') seeking for redelivery of the possession of the property in respect of which the appellant has been dispossessed. The application filed by the appellant for dispossession was resisted by the 2nd respondent-decree holder. The Civil Judge in the impugned order rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that the appellant has failed to establish that he has been dispossessed from the property in question illegally in execution of the decree obtained by the 2nd respondent-decree holder.