HAFIZ RAHIM UD DIN Vs. TIRLOK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tirlok Singh, respondent, held leasehold rights in a plot of land under the Delhi Improvement Trust. On March 20, 1947 he conveyed his said rights to the appellants Hafiz Rahini Udin and others, by a registered deed of sale. The appellants were also given possession of the land. In or about September, 1947 when there were communal riots and disturbances, at the time of the partition of the country, the appellants appear to have lost control over the said land, and could not manage and retain physical possession thereof. The respondent, at that time, took back the possession of the said plot. On January 29, 1958, the appellants filed a suit for possession against the respondent in respect of the suit land. This suit was decreed on March 30, 1959. Respondent's appeal was dismissed on October 17,1961.

(2.) On November 1, 1962 the appellants took out execution of their decree against the respondent, who filed his objections thereto. According to him the decree had become inexecutable, inter alia, on the ground that the lease-hold rights had been cancelled by the Delhi Improvement Trust, the paramount landlords, on October 14, 1962. The decree-holder appellants were said to have thus lost all rights in the said land. The appellant-decree-holders denied the alleged cancelling of the lease-hold rights or the inexecutability of the decree. The executing Court found that the lease in favour of the decreeholder appellant had been cancelled by the Delhi Development Authority and, therefore, there was no right or interest left with the decreeholder in the land in suit. The decree as such was held to have become inexecutable. Respondent's objections were accepted and the execution application was dismissed. The learned Additional District Judge concurred with the executing Court in appeal, which was dismissed. The appellants have come up to this Court in second appeal.

(3.) The Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the executing Court can take notice of the subsequent events. The decree if executed would result in infringement of the law as the occupation of the appellants would be unauthorised occupation under section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.