SAT PAL Vs. RAJ KAUSHALYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been brought against order dated December 13, 1984, of Shri Ravi Kumar, Additional District Judge, by which he had dismissed the objection petition filed by the appellant as being not maintainable inasmuch as the execution application had been withdrawn by the decree holder.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the father of the appellant had entered into an agreement of sale with the decree holder-respondent on the 6th June 1979 under which he agreed to sell house No. E-153, Outram Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi, for a consideration of Rs. 20,000.00 . It was mentioned in the agreement that under the scheme of the government the said house has to be demolished by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and in lieu of the said house, vendor was to be given possession of a plot No. 630, Dr. Mukerjee Nagar, Delhi and he would hand over the possession of the said plot to the vendee on execution and the registration of the sale-deed. On failure on the part of the vendor to perform his part of the contract the decree holder brought a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement for enforcing the vendor to execute and register the sale deed in her favour and also sought relief of possession in respect of the said property. The suit was decreed but only relief of specificK performance of the agreement for sale was grand and no order was made regarding the relief of possession.

(3.) However, as the Judgment Debtor-vendor failed to comply with the decree, an execution application was filed by the respondent-decree holder seeking execution of the sale deed and also for possession of the said property. It is admitted case that during the execution proceedings the present appellant filed an objection petition pleading that the property at Kingsway Camp had been allotted in lieu of some ancestral property and thus appellant was in possession of the said property as a coparcener and was not liable to be dispossessed in execution of the said decree to which he was not a party and no sale deed should be executed in favour of the decree holder by the judgment debtor or by the court. That objection petition was dismissed by the court on the finding that the same was premature as no warrants of possession had been yet issued. The appellant did not challenge that order by filing any appeal or revision. Later on the sale deed was executed and registered through the process of the court in favour of the decree holder. It is also pertinent to mention that the decree holder had moved an application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correction of the judgment and the decree in order to get the relief of possession incorporated in the judgment and the decree, but that application was later on withdrawn by the decree holder. It so happened that after execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of the decree holder, the appellant again filed objections objecting to the said execution and registration of sale deed in favour of the decree holder at his back. He pleaded that it has been done by practising some fraud. The appellant claimed that he was in possession of the property and so he was not liable to be dispossessed. He instituted a civil suit for injunction restraining the decree bolder from taking possession of the property on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed and that suit is still pending.