UMESH BHIMARAO MARAPUR Vs. DEVAPPA DHULAPPA NAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed against the orders passed in Execution appeal No. 17 of 1976, dated 2-2-1977 by the learned Principal Civil judge, Bijapur, dismissing the said appeal and upholding the objection raised by the judgment-debtor (J. Dr.) since there is no assignment of decree in favour of the appellant-transferee of the decree schedule property, he is not entitled to execute the decree.

(2.) I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on both sides.

(3.) ONE Channabasappa Kurle who was the owner of the decree schedule building obtained an eviction order against the respondent-J. Dr. in hrc No. 2 of 1973 on the ground under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. After obtaining the said eviction order, he sold a portion of the suit property which is the tenanted property in favour of the appellant under a registered sale deed dated 16-7-1974. Thereafter, the appellant filed the Execution Case No. 4 of 1975 in the Executing Court that is, Principal munsiff Court, Bijapur. That execution petition was allowed by an order dated 4-8-1975 overruling all the objections raised by the respondent j. Dr. The first appeal filed against that order, Execution Appeal No. 20 of 1975 by the J. Dr. came to be dismissed by the learned Principal Civil judge, Bijapur, by an order dated 15-11-1975. Against the said order, the Second Execution Appeal No. 91 of 1975 was filed by the respondent j. Dr. before this Court and the said appeal came to be allowed by this court by an order dated 11-3-1976 and the matter was remanded to the original Executing Court to consider the objections raised by the respondent regarding the identity of the property purchased by the appellant and the plea of new tenancy set up by the respondent, by giving opportunity to both parties to adduce their evidence. Thereafter, the original executing Court after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce their evidence and hearing their arguments, dismissed the execution petition by an order dated 12-7-1976 by upholding the objection raised by the respondent-J. Dr. that the present appellant who is the purchaser of the portion of the decree schedule property is not entitled to execute the decree, since there is no assignment of decree under execution in his favour. The said order has been confirmed in the first appeal filed by the present appellant in Execution Appeal No. 17 of 1976 by an order dated 2-2-1977.