K BHASKARAM Vs. MOHAMMAD MOULANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein are the respondents-judgment debtors in E.A.No.14 of 2004 in E.P.No.107 of 2003 in O.S.No.641 of 1994 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

(2.) The suit O.S.No.641 of 1994 was initially filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are the wife and husband. During the pendency of the said suit, the first plaintiff died, and therefore, his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 3 to 8, who are the respondents 3 to 8 in the appeal. The suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale and the same was decreed by the trial Court, which was also confirmed by this Court in the appeals. There is no dispute that the decree is joint and indivisible. During the pendency of the C.C.C.A. on the file of this Court, the second plaintiff, who is the wife of the first plaintiff, died and therefore, the plaintiffs 3 to 8 were also shown as her legal representatives. There is no dispute that the respondents 3 to 8 herein are the plaintiffs 3 to 8, who are the legal representatives of the plaintiffs 1 and 2. When the decree was passed by the trial Court, there were 7 decree holders and after the death of the second plaintiff, during the pendency of the appeal before this Court, they remained only 6 decree holders, who are the respondents 3 to 8 herein. The appeals filed on the file of this Court in C.C.C.A.Nos.206 of 1994 and 158 of 1995 were dismissed on 31-3-2003 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs-respondents 3 to 8 herein are therefore entitled to get the execution of the decree passed for specific performance. Therefore, E.P.No.107 of 2003 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court Secunderabad, was filed by the respondents 3 to 8 herein against the judgment debtors, who are the appellants herein. The relief claimed in the said E.P. is to direct the judgment-debtors to execute the sale deed in favour of the decree holders jointly in their names under Sections 47, 51 and Order 21 Rule 35 C.P.C. and in case the judgment- debtors refuse or fail to execute and register the sale deed, a request was also made to execute the sale deed by the Court itself and register the same in favour of all decree holders jointly and severally.

(3.) The suit schedule property was admeasuring 125.50 Sq. mtrs. in plot No.8, situated at Padmarao Nagar (Zamistanpur), Secunderabad. The E.P. was filed on 17-9-2003 signed by all the decree holders. One year thereafter, an application in E.A.No.14 of 2004 in E.A.No.107 of 2003 in O.S.No.641 of 1994 was filed underOrder21 Rules 15 and 16 C.P.C. to directthe judgment- debtors to execute and register the sale deed relating to the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff No.4-Decree holder No.4. In the said petition, the names of all the decree holders were shown and an affidavit was filed in support of the petition by the plaintiff No.4-Decree holder No.4 alone stating that he is filing the said affidavit on his behalf and also on behalf of the other decree holders. It is stated that the said suit was filed by their parents for specific performance of agreement of sale entered into by the judgment debtors in favour of their parents. After the death of their parents, they were brought on record as legal representatives. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the suit, the appeals in C.C.C.A.Nos.206 of 1994 and 158 of 1995 were filed on the file of this Court and both the appeals were dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The judgment debtors did not execute and register the sale deed in favour of the Decree holders. Therefore, the decree holder No.4 got issued a legal notice through his lawyer calling upon the judgment debtors to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the decree holders. Having received the notice, the judgment debtors did not either reply to the notice or comply with the demands set out therein and therefore, the E.P. was filed for execution. It is further stated that the decree holder No.4 was looking after the entire proceedings of the case and he alone gave evidence in the said suit proceedings and all the expenses involved in the said litigation were borne by him and even the expenses involved in filing the E.P. '"ere also incurred by him alone. In para-7 of the affidavit, it is stated that the other decree holders are willing forthe sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property executed and registered in favour of decree holder No.4 exclusively and in that connection they have executed separate affidavits. The original affidavits are filed in the Court along with the E.P. It is further stated that a counter affidavit was filed by the judgment debtors stating that they are required to execute and register the sale deed in favour of all the decree holders and not in favour of one person i.e., decree holder No.4. If the judgment-debtors execute and register the sale deed in favour of all the decree holders, in turn they have to execute and register another deed of conveyance or transfer in favour of the plaintiff No.4-decree holder No.4 which would involve double expense, which sum will run to thousands. For the aforesaid reasons, it has been decided by the other decree holders to seek permission of the Court to permit the decree holder No.4 alone to be the transferee or vendee in the proposed execution and registration of the sale deed relating to the suit schedule property. Accordingly, he has filed the said petition stating that by virtue of the assignment of the decree in his favour by other decree holders, assigning their interests in his favour by filing separate affidavits, he alone is entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour and the said fact of assignment could be acknowledged and registered by the Court. It is further stated that as per the provisions of Order 21 Rules 15 and 16 C.P.C., no prejudice would be caused to the judgment debtors, if such course is permitted. Accordingly, the plaintiff No.4-decree holder No.4 requested to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour by the judgment-debtors instead of executing in favour of all the decree holders.