RAMJILAL Vs. RAM PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is concerned with some questions whih have arisen during execution proceedings relating to a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land situated in village Saboli, Shahdara, Delhi. The contract was between Ram Pershad, decree holder (now respondent No. l)and Bhu Dev Sharma (respondent No 2 in this appeal) The other parties to the suit were subsequent transferees who were alleged to be bound by that agreement; these parties are the present appellants. The suit was tried by Shri B K. Agnihotri, Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi who decreed the suit on 17th Aug., 1961. The decree as passed directed the specific performance of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff and also ordered the cancellation of the sale in favour of the other defendants (subsequent transferees who are the present appellants).

(2.) Two seperate appeals were filed in the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court being R F. A. No. 142 D/61 and R. F. A. No. 146-D/61. These appeals were dismissed on 28th Oct., 1971, by a Division Bench of this Court (Andley and Jagjit Singh JJ.). Then execution proceedings were taken out by the decree-holder. The first defendant was ready to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-decree-holder, but the other defedants who were in possession by reason of the sale in their favour raised certain objections regarding the execution. Those objections have been decided in favour of the decree-holder and the aggrieved judgment-debtors have come in appeal to this Court.

(3.) The two points raised by the appellants were (a) that the money payable under the decree as consideration for the sale, amounting to Rs, 10,000.00 should be paid to them and not to judgment-debtor No. 1 and (b) possession could not be taken away from them as there was no decree for possession against them. Regarding the first point, the executing court held that as the sale deed is to be executed by defendant No. 1 he alone is entitled to get the amount, but the other judgment- debtors can probably have their relief somewhere else. On the second point, it was held that delivery of possession was ancillary to the execution of the sale-deed, and hence possession has to be delivered by the appellants. Reliance was placed on two judgments delivered by Avadh Behari J. which are reported 'as Ex-Servicemen Enterprises (N) Ltd. v. Sumey Singh, AIR 1976 Delhi 56 and Ex-Servicemed Enterprises (N) Ltd. v. Sumey Singh AIR 1976 Delhi 18L I have seen those two judgments but find that they do not really cover the point now before the Court.