ROHIT KUMAR Vs. DALIP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Kanchan Bala Thukral has filed objections under Order 21 Rules 99 and 100 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 alleging that she being the owner in her own rights of the immovable property known as Flat No.F-16, Desh Bandhu Gupta Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi has been illegally and forcibly dispossessed by the Decree Holders under the cover of executing warrants of possession issued against the judgment debtor. These objections were decided vide orders dated 24th August,2001 prima facie holding that the applicant/objector was having independent title in the suit property. She was, however, not put back in possession and an inquiry was ordered to be held under Order 21 Rule 101, Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant/objector preferred an appeal EFA(OS). 8/2001 against the aforesaid orders.

(2.) Vide orders dated 1st May,2002 the appeal was disposed of and the case was remanded back with the directions to re-adjudicate the objections in the light of the Apex Court's decision in Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Trust Anr. 1998 ( 3 ) SCC 723, where in the Apex Court observed that the adjudication mentioned in the rules need not necessarily involve a detailed enquiry or collection of evidence. The executing Court can adjudicate as to whether the resistor or objector is a person bound by the decree or has title independent of the judgment debtor on admitted facts and even on the averments made in the application made by the objector.

(3.) Before adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties a short background of the facts is necessary. One Banarsi Dass had filed a suit for specific performance and for declaration and possession of property bearing No-F-16, Desh Bandhu Gupta Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi against the legal heirs of Harbans Lal. Dalip Kumar Jain, the Judgment Debtor is the son of Harbans Lal. He was impleaded as a defendant in that suit. The property being a Government built property was allotted to Harbans Lal under the Displaced Person (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules. As such, Union of India through Land and Development Office was also impleaded as a party to that suit. The said suit for specific performance was decreed in favour of Banarsi Dass on 4th April,1985. On directions in that suit lease deed was executed by Land and Development Office (for short L & DO) in favour of the legal heirs of Harbans Lal including the judgment debtor, Dalip Kumar Jain. Pursuant to the decree dated 4th April,1985 a sale deed was executed on 11th January,1988 in favour of Banarsi Dass on behalf of legal heirs of Harbans Lal. The name of Banarsi Dass was mutated in the records of L & DO and Municipal Corporation of Delhi. By this sale deed the judgment debtor, Dalip Kumar Jain ceased to have any right, title or interest in the said property. This decree in favour of Banarsi Dass was not challenged and became final.