YELLAPPA Vs. RAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS herein are judgment debtor Nos. 1 and 2 in E.P. No. 27/2010 which is levied by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. Respondent Nos. 3(a) to 3(e) and 4(a) to 4(d) are other judgment debtors in the aforesaid execution petition.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , E.P. No. 27/2010 was levied pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 128/1986 filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the relief of partition and separate possession in suit schedule properties. It is seen that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the children of original plaintiff - Nagaraj Parashuramappa, who sought 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. The said suit came to be allowed by judgment and decree dated 30.06.1995. In the said suit original plaintiff - Nagaraj Parashuramappa and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are awarded 1/6th share and 1/6th share of the father of the plaintiff & defendants' share was again divided among all the children which was challenged by the petitioners herein by filing R.A. No. 22/2001 which came to be allowed partially in changing the share of plaintiff in the original suit as 45/252 share as against 1/6th share awarded in the Court below. That was again taken up in the second appeal by the petitioners herein in R.S.A. No. 1688/2005 which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 09.10.2006, thereby confirming the share of original plaintiff as 45/252 share and each of the defendants were also awarded share.

(3.) IT is seen that in this background, when delivery warrant was issued for securing vacant possession of the property from the judgment debtor Nos. 1 and 2 have raised two objections. The execution petition itself was challenged by them on flimsy grounds like all the parties to the decree have not signed the execution petition and vakalathnama is not signed by all the parties and only two of them cannot seek execution of the decree. Further, it was also contended that the name of the original plaintiff is not shown in the said execution petition. Therefore, the decree cannot be executed and they further raised objection regarding the execution warrant that was issued in respect of residential properties.