THOMAS DANNIEL Vs. J. RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A simple decree for partition and separation was sought to be executed against a stranger/3 person for getting possession of Government land having an extent of 1.65 Acres. The State Government is not in the party array of the suit for partition. There is no substantial prayer in the suit for declaration of right, title or interest over the property in favour of the plaintiff, but a mere suit for partition alone was filed incorporating the Government land having an extent of 1.65 Acres, alleging that he is in possession of the said Government land. When it was sought to be executed, the appellant herein, a third party, came up with a claim petition disputing the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the Government land and alleged that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The trial court dismissed the claim petition treating the same under Rule 97, 98 and 101 of Order 21 C.P.C. It was confirmed in appeal, against which the obstructor/claim petitioner came up with this appeal.

(2.) The following questions came up for consideration:

(3.) Both the courts below committed a very serious mistake without addressing the scope and ambit of Rule 97, 98 and 101 of Order 21 C.P.C. The trial court considered the application under Rule 97, 98 and 101 of Order 21 C.P.C. That itself amounts to a wrong perception. The very same mistake was also committed by the first appellate court without referring to the relevant provisions under which the application would fall. Both the courts below proceeded with the matter under the impression that it is a claim petition filed by a third party-claimant.