TAYAMMA Vs. K. RAMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be answered in this appeal is whether the appellants (referred to as 'applicants') could have filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short) in the execution proceeding initiated by the respondent. This question is to be answered in the following factual background.

(2.) O.S. No. 45/2012, on the file of First Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Ballari, was a suit filed by the respondent for declaration of his title over four acres of land in Sy. No. 2 of the village Janekunte and, taluk and district Ballari (for short 'suit property'). He also sought a direction to defendant nos.2 and 3 to disburse compensation amount to him in connection with acquisition of the said land. The first defendant in the suit was the brother of the applicants. The trial court decreed the suit declaring the respondent to be the owner of the suit property and that he was entitled to receive the compensation amount. The respondent initiated the suit on the premise that he purchased the suit property from Belaglappa under a registered sale deed dtd. 7/10/1998. For some reason the respondent could not get the revenue records mutated to his name and the name of Belagalappa continued in the revenue records. The suit property was acquired by the second defendant, the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the benefit of the third defendant and the compensation amount was deposited. The respondent pleaded that since he had already purchased the suit property by the time it was subjected to acquisition, he was entitled to compensation and for this reason he sought for a direction to defendant nos.2 and 3 to pay compensation amount to him. The suit was decreed on 17/12/2015. Seeking disbursement of the compensation amount, the respondent initiated execution proceeding and in the course of proceeding the applicants came up with an application under order 21 Rules 47, 94, 97, 106 and 107 read with Ss. 47, 94 and 151 of CPC. The executing court dismissed the application by its order dtd. 16/4/2019 and hence this appeal by the applicants challenging the said order.

(3.) We heard Sri Raghuveer R. Sattigeri, learned counsel for the applicants.