PAMELA MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. ASHA ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a chequered history. On the one hand the daughter of the deceased decree holder has filed the instant execution petition for possession of the property which has been sold by none else but the son of the deceased decree holder to the objectors and on the other hand, the said son Shri K.V- Kohli has filed the instant application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded as co-decree holder.

(2.) Facts as culled out from the pleadings of various litigations that took place between the objectors, respondents, applicants and the decree holder need to be summed up in brief for deciding the application in the proper prospective. The same are as under: The suit for possession bearing No.1080/79 was filed by the deceased decree holder Dr.(Mrs.) Raseel Kohli against one Khairati Lal. The suit was decreed. The judgment debtor Khairati Lal had given the undertaking that he shall directly hand over the possession of the suit premises to the decree holder Dr.Raseel Kohli. Khairati Lal also gave the undertaking not to alienate the property.

(3.) Instead of delivering the possession directly to the decree holder Dr. Raseel Kohli, Khairati Lal handed over the possession to M/s Texla Service Centre, the objectors. Before the decree could be executed Dr.Raseel Kohli died. The applicant Mr.K.V.Kohli made the application for his substitution representing that he was the sole legal heir of Dr.Raseel Kohli. The applicant KV Kohii was substituted as a decree holder. On 11/08/1989, execution petition was dismissed in default and was never revived presumably for the reason that Shri K.V. Kohli had decided to sell the suit property to M/s. Texla Service Centre. And on 6/12/1989 KV Kohli executed three sale deeds in respect of suit properties in favour of M/s Texia Service Centre.