NAGARAJ REDDY Vs. K.V.CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Executing Court in dismissing the Execution petition No.2673/2017 by recording a finding that petitioner has not proved the alleged disobedience by the respondents-judgment debtors.

(2.) The facts leading to the case are as under:

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that for ten years there was no interference and the petitioner and his family lived peacefully in the schedule 'A' property till 28/4/2017. It is also contended by the petitioner that he had to move to a rented house as the own house in suit 'A' schedule property had partially collapsed on account of rains. When the petitioner went to suit 'A' schedule property to carry out repairs during second week of May 2017, the second judgment debtor started interfering and stopped him from carrying out any work on the strength of the alleged family partition between the respondents covering the entire extent measuring 66 x 70 ft. The second respondent has instituted a suit in O.S.No.3395/2017. The subject matter of the suit is the entire extent measuring 66 x 70 ft. respondent No.2 obtained an exparte interim order. This compelled the petitioner to file the present execution petition seeking attachment and sale of schedule 'B' immovable property of the judgment debtors and also sought for a direction restraining the judgment debtors from interfering with the decree holder from putting up compound/fence to the schedule 'A' property and also repairing walls of the old house etc. In the pending execution petition, the petitioner also sought for detention of all judgment debtors in civil prison. The executing Court has proceeded to dismiss the petition. While dismissing the petition, the executing Court was of the view that the decree holder has not furnished any details and there are no specific pleadings as to when the judgment debtors started construction and encroached 3ft. space on the northern side of the schedule 'B' property. The executing Court was of the view that except bald allegations of P.W.1, no materials are placed indicating disobedience.