UBALDINO OLIVEIRA Vs. SADANAND LADU BORKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent to be heard forthwith.

(2.) AN obstructor in Execution Application No. 19/90 filed Civil Misc. Application No. 305/93 before the Civil Judge, S. D. , Margao is the petitioner herein. The aforesaid application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Executing Court by its order dated 11-10-1993. He filed an appeal against that order before the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao as Misc. Civil Appeal No. 129/93 which was also dismissed by the Addl. District Judge by judgment dated 30th April, 1994. The petitioner herein challenges this order in this Revision Application.

(3.) THE petitioner in brief contends that the respondent No. 1 Sadanand Ladu Borkar (since deceased) filed a suit as Special Civil Suit No. 155/82 against one Luis Vaz and the suit was decreed. Thereupon the aforesaid Sadanand Ladu Borkar filed execution application and the petitioner intervened as third party to obstruct the execution and this is how the impugned order came to be passed by the courts below. The petitioners case is that by Agreement dated 11-10-1993 the judgment debtor in Special Civil Suit No. 155/82 (respondent No. 5) Smt. Ana Severina Monteiro e Vaz transferred the business as well as the premises of Ratnadeepa Lunch Home to the petitioner on payment of Rs. 2 lakhs. He also contended that one Luis Vaz who was the lawful sub-tenant of the suit premises was inducted in the suit premises with the consent of the landlord Shri Costa Pereira. The said Luis Vaz expired sometime in 1983 without any issues. The right of inheritance devolved on the petitioner. Both trial Court and Lower Appellate Court dismissed the said suits. In Second Appeal before this Court a consent decree came to be passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 45/87, at the instance of the Decree Holders and the Judgment debtor before this Court on 24-4-1990. The said decree, it is alleged by the petitioner, came to be passed by this Court by collusion between the Judgment Debtor and the Decree Holders in order to deprive the petitioner of his independent right to the suit premises. It is alleged by him the said decree is not binding on him. He further asserts that he is in actual possession of the suit premises from the year 1987. There is no order or judgment passed against him to deliver possession. The petitioner stated that the suit filed by him for declaring the consent decree null and void as Special Civil Suit No. 260/90 is pending. In obstructing the execution of the said consent decree the petitioner filed the present application before the Executing Court purported to be under Order 21, Rule 97 of C. P. C.