ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS Vs. LALJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been referred against the judgment and order dated 13.12.1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gyanpur, district Varanasi in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1979 (Execution Case No. 14 of 1978) rejecting application under Order 21, Rules 97 and 98 of Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The decree holders of Original Suit No. 13 of 1970 filed application under Order 21, Rules 97 and 98 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment-debtors to obtain possession over the house in question. The opposite party Lalji put up resistence when the Amin went to the spot for delivering possession to the decree holders. It has been alleged that Lalji had no right to obstruct to the delivery of possession to the decree holders. He in collusion with the judgment-debtors (Vishwanath and Shobh Nath) was putting obstruction towards illegal again. So it was prayed that the decree may be executed against. Lalji.

(3.) Objection has been filed by Lalji against the said application challenging the contention and denying the allegation. It was claimed that Lalji was in possession over the house and shop in question being a tenant from mortgagee since 15.3.1962 alongwith judgment-debtors and one Baijnath being partner of a firm. It was also contended that Lalji was not a party to the suit hence he was not bound by the decree. Resistance put by Lalji was bonafide and it was done in accordance with his independent right. Original Suit No. 13 of 1970 was filed by Ram Prasad, the mortgager, for redemption of mortagage against Vishwanath and Shobh Nath, who contended that the suit property was let out to a firm with caption Sunder Ram Vishwanath Prasad in which the two mortagages, namely, Vishwanath and Shobh Nath alongwith Lalji and Baijnath were partners. The suit was decreed in favour of the mortgager and having succeeded in appeal the said decree became final. During the pendency of the suit Ram Prasad sold the property to the appellants who stepped in and put the decree in execution and at that stage Lalji opposite party-respondent resisted the delivery of possession in the aforesaid manner.