M.P. PRAKASH Vs. M.V. SEETHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed on IA 10 in Ex.Case 10/2008 by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.), Chikmagalur on 19.4.2014, the 3rd and 4th judgment debtors are before this Court in revision. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the 1st respondent / party in person.

(2.) Petitioners' counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shew Bux Mohata & Anr Vs Bengal Breweries Ltd & Ors, 1961 AIR(SC) 137 to contend that when delivery of possession to decree holder is ordered and accepted, with the defendant remaining on the premises, it is held the decree is fully satisfied and it cannot again be executed. He has also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mrs Rosane Jerome D Souza Vs Bhagvandas Gangaram Kamble (dead) by LRs, 2005 1 KCCR 292to contend that a second application for delivery will not lie unless there has been no legal, complete and effectual delivery of possession earlier.

(3.) Respondent / party in person who is also an advocate and claims to be a doctor has relied upon the case of Rajendra Singh & Anr Vs Sathyavathi,2013 STPL(Web) 439wherein it is held that the fruits of the decree should reach the party who obtains the same. The decree holder has not taken the actual possession of the property after demolishing the structure constructed therein. Relying on this judgment he sought to reopen the execution to take possession of the B & C schedule property.