SURINDER KUMAR ARORA Vs. BHOLA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.12996/2010 (for exemption) Allowed subject to just exception. RSA No.144/2010 & CM No.12995/2010 The Trial Court on 30.9.2009 had decreed the suit of the plaintiff. This was a suit which had been filed by the father Bhola Nath against his son Surinder Kumar seeking a decree of possession and permanent injunction. The suit property was property bearing no.100, Patel Gali Nos.1 &2, near Laxmi Cinema, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. The Trial Judge had framed eight issues. Issue no.6 was relevant which inter alia reads as follows:

(2.) The First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.5.2010 had confirmed the order of the Trial Judge.

(3.) Substantial questions of law have been formulated on page 2 in the body of the appeal. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the decree passed by the Trial Judge and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is an inexecutable decree in as much as, as it is admitted between the parties that the plaintiff's father has on 22.12.2006 gifted the suit property to his daughter Smt.Renu. In this view of the matter, the decree having been passed in favour the decree holder who is the plaintiff Bhola Nath, the new owner now being Smt.Renu cannot execute this decree. It is further submitted that PW-1 in his cross-examination has stated-