MOHINIDEVI GANGARAM MALI Vs. SUBHASHCHANDRA TRYAMBAKLAL TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.S.R. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

(2.) In view of the nature of decree drawn in favour of the orig.plaintiff and agreement of understanding arrived at between one of the plaintiffs and the present petitioner on confirmation given by one Aniruddhray Girjashankarray, it will not be possible for this Court to say that the order under challenge is in any way bad or illegal. The Suit for declaration and injunction was filed by two plaintiffs and merely because one of the plaintiffs has been won over by the present petitioner, it will be difficult for this Court to say that the successful party cannot get the order of declaration and injunction executed through the competent Court. The facts placed before this Court by Mr.Patel are that the Darkhast Executor-Subhash Trivedi has transferred his interest in Tenement No.20, in favour of one Shantilal, also would not disentitle him to get the decree executed in absence of any legal and valid transfer in favour of Shantilal. On the contrary, Subhash Trivedi-Executor, owner of Tenement No.20, may be under obligation to see that the litigation pending in the manner of execution application is resolved before transfer of the property.

(3.) The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Dutt and another v. Dharam Pal and others, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1694, pointed out by Mr. Patel, would not all help the present petitioner because the cited decision is in the case of a joint decree holder having equal interest in a property where the third person in whose favour one of the Decree Holder had transferred the acquired rights to get the property partitioned. The third party had acquired the status of a joint owner The nature of relief granted in favour of the plaintiff-Subhash Trivedi is not of either partition or of entitlement to get the property partitioned between the two plaintiffs who are co-owners or joint owners. If the say of the present petitioner is accepted then any wrong doer may be tempted to prejudice the interest of one of the Decree Holders, only with as view to defeat the original decree or to protract the litigation for indefinite period in all such or similar decree cases Hence, the Court is inclined to dismiss this petition.