BHIKOBAI KANHAIYALAL Vs. DHANNALAL CHINTAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2-Dhannalal and Hemraj-obtained a decree for possession after eviction of their tenant Draupadibai (respondent No. 3)from the suit house. In execution of that decree, an objection was raised by kanhaiyalal (now dead) that he was in possession of the suit house in his own right as the owner on account of which he could not be evicted in order to hand over actual possession to the decree holders. Respondents 4 and 5 and the appellants are all legal representatives of the deceased Kanhaiyalal.

(2.) DURING the execution proceedings, symbolical possession alone was given to the decree holders since actual possession could not be given without evicting Kanhaiyalal. The two main objections taken by Kanhaiyalal were:-

(3.) BOTH these objections of Kanhaiyalal being rejected, an appeal (Civil misc. Appeal No. 129 of 1967-Kanhaiyalal v. Dhannalal and two others) was filed by Kanhaiyalal in this Court reiterating the aforesaid objections. The aforesaid first objection was decided against Kanhaiyalal since it was conceded that the argument had no merit in the facts of the present case. However, no enquiry having been made by the executing Court before deciding the other question, this Court remanded the case for a fresh decision on that point after holding an enquiry.