Sri. Venkatesh v. Sri. S Ramesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

SRI. VENKATESH, S/O. LATE SRI. DASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. KODIHALLI VILLAGE, OLD WARD NO.15, NEW WARD NO.17, BHADRAVATHI-577301. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.K.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. S.RAMESH, S/O. SRI. A.S.KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PWD CONTRACTOR, R/O. MADHAVANAGARA, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI-577301. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRINATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.09.2026, THIS DAY, AN JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CAV JUDGMENT

Sri. B. K. Manjunath, counsel for the appellant, and Sri. Srinath, counsel for the caveator/respondent, appeared in person.

¶2The appeal is filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 03.11.2025, passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravati, in R.A.No.79/2022, on several grounds as outlined in the appeal.

¶3Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

Submissions of counsel for the Appellant:

It is urged that the impugned judgment contradicts facts and law. Counsel contends that the Court overlooked evidence of a residential house - new property No.462/486 in Survey No. 66/2 - sold at Court auction. It is argued that the

Court erred in remanding the case and directing issuance of a delivery warrant, despite the Executing Court having ordered eviction through lawful procedure, since the appellant possessed the house built by his father in Survey No. 66/2.

Counsel points to the dismissal of HRC No.12/2010, which rejected eviction proceedings for want of landlord-tenant relationship. Reliance is placed on Sameer Singh v. Abdul Rab (2015) 1 SCC 379, wherein the Supreme Court held that all questions relating to right, title, or interest—including those raised by strangers—must be adjudicated. On these grounds, it is urged that the appeal be allowed.

Submissions of counsel for the Respondent:

Conversely, counsel for the respondent justified the remand order. It is submitted that the Executing Court rightly rejected the obstructor's application, and subsequent appeals were dismissed. The respondent, being the auction purchaser, is entitled to possession. Since the Executing

Court declined to issue a delivery warrant, the appellate Court was justified in directing its issuance. Urging additional contentions, counsel submits that the appeal lacks merit and must be dismissed.

¶4This Court heard the arguments and carefully perused the record.

¶5The only law point that would arise for determination is:

Whether the remand order directing the Executing Court to issue a delivery warrant is justified.

¶6The controversy lies within a narrow compass: whether the remand order directing issuance of a delivery warrant is sustainable. The record discloses that the property was attached and sold in Court auction, with the respondent emerging as the highest bidder. A sale certificate and delivery warrant were issued on

19.03.2016. Subsequently, Venkatesh filed an objection application under Order XXI Rules 97–103 CPC, claiming rights in the property. Upon inquiry, the Executing Court held that the objector had

no right, title, or interest and was at best a trespasser. Yet it declined to issue a delivery warrant, directing that possession be taken through due process.

Such refusal was unsustainable in law. Once the Executing Court adjudicated the objection and found no right in the objector, the only lawful course was to issue a delivery warrant to the auction purchaser. The Appellate Court, therefore, rightly corrected the error and directed issuance of the warrant.

The appellant's reliance on the HRC proceedings is misplaced, as the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship is irrelevant to execution proceedings. Likewise, possession without title cannot defeat the rights of the auction purchaser. The Supreme Court decision in Sameer Singh v. Abdul Rab reinforces that objections must be adjudicated, which has already been done.

¶7Moreover, the Executing Court has held that the appellant has no independent right to the property. The

matter thus stands concluded. Therefore, this Court passes the following order.

¶1The remand order directing the Executing Court to issue a delivery warrant is upheld.

¶2The appellant has failed to establish any independent right, title, or interest in the property.

¶3The Executing Court shall forthwith issue a delivery warrant to the auction purchaser.

¶4The appeal is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.

¶5Because of dismissal of the appeal, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2