VEENA MAHAJAN Vs. V.N. VERMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Decree Holder is aggrieved by the order of a learned Single Judge staying execution proceedings, till decision in a suit, i.e. CS(OS) 779/2001 is rendered.

(2.) The Decree Holder had entered into an agreement with the original owner of the property, first respondent in these proceedings (hereafter called "Verma"), on 14.02.1986. He filed a suit on 11.03.1988, claiming specific performance of that agreement to sell. Before the filing of the suit, another agreement to sell was entered between Verma and one Kamlesh Gupta. The suit filed by the Decree Holder for Specific Performance was allowed and decreed in full on 29.04.1998. In the meanwhile, it is alleged that on 27.11.1990 yet another agreement to sell the same property was entered into between Kamlesh Gupta and the second and third respondents (i.e. Meena Rani and Nalini Gupta), alleged vendee during pendency of the Decree Holder's suit. It was alleged that the property was handed over to them; and that they constructed a boundary sometime in 1998. The agreement to sell - dated 27.11.1990 entered into between Kamlesh Gupta and the said two respondents also contained an endorsement by the first respondent Verma.

(3.) The Division Bench rejected Verma's appeal. The second and third respondents had sought for impleadment as respondents in the appeal preferred by the first respondent Verma. The Division Bench dismissed Verma's appeal RFA (OS) 26/1998. The Division Bench held, among others, in regard to the application filed by Meena Rani and Nalini Gupta that the agreement to sell in their favor entered into on 27.11.1990 did not create any right or title or interest in property. After the decision of the Division Bench, execution proceedings were initiated by the Decree Holder. Notice was issued on 27.08.2012. In the meanwhile, Meena Rani and Nalini Gupta filed a suit CS(OS) 779/2001 against Verma who was the vendor (first respondent in this case) and Judgment Debtor as well as against Kamlesh Gupta for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.11.1990 and of agreement dated 21.01.1988; in relation to the same suit property. These two plaintiffs alleged that on 21.01.1988 Verma executed Special Power of Attorney as well as an undertaking through affidavit and an agreement to sell in favor of Kamlesh Gupta in respect of the suit property and handed over possession to her. Kamlesh Gupta in turn executed an agreement to sell on 27.11.1990 in favor of the said two individuals Meena Rani and Nalini Gupta. Meena Rani and Nalini Gupta added the appellant/Decree Holder Veena Mahajan as first defendant in the suit CS(OS) 779/2001 filed by them for specific relief and a declaration that Kamlesh Gupta their vendor had conveyed title and property rights, in respect of the suit property, and the plaintiffs were thus entitled to protection as well as possession of the property, both against the present appellant/Decree Holder as well as the original owner, Verma.