NEERAJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. NIRMAL KAUR GILL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition has been directed against orders dtd. 3/3/2020 (Annexure P4) and 16/3/2020 (Annexure P5) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Ludhiana whereby objections filed by the petitioner in execution No.36257 of 2013 have been dismissed and the Local Commission was appointed to execute and register the sale deed on behalf of JD Sangeeta Dhir in favour of Nirmal Kaur Gill, decree holder.

(2.) Ms. Nirmal Kaur Gill filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 14/6/2004 in respect of double storeyed House No.62-H measuring 100 sq. yards situated in village Sunet, abadi Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana against Smt. Sangeeta Dhir and Jasbir Singh in January, 2005, decided on 10/2/2011. In the said suit, the plaintiff also challenged sale deed dtd. 28/12/2004 executed by Smt. Sangeeta Dhir in favour of Jasbir Singh defendant No.2 therein. Onthe basis of decree dtd. 10/2/2011, Ms. Nirmal Kaur Gill filed execution No.36257 of 2013. The present petitioner filed objections (Annexure P2). He has alleged that Sangeeta Dhir never executed the alleged agreement dtd. 14/6/2004 in favour of the plaintiff/decree holder. After decree dtd. 10/2/2011 was passed, the decree holder did not make any effort to get the same recorded/incorporated in the revenue records. Sangeeta Dhir sold the suit property to Jasbir Singh vide sale deed dtd. 28/12/2004 and delivered possession thereof to the vendee. Jasbir Singh sold the property to Smt. Manjit Kaur vide sale deed dtd. 17/8/2006. Manjit Kaur through Paramjit Singh her general power of attorney sold the suit house to Jagjit Singh and Harpreet Singh sons of late Satnam Singh vide sale deed dtd. 14/11/2008. Jagjit Singh and Harpreet Singh were in possession of the suit house and they sold the disputed property to the petitioner vide vasika No.6496 dtd. 13/11/2014 for Rs.35.00 lakhs.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner would argue that the executing Court dismissed the objections without framing issue(s). It is argued that since the petitioner raised the plea that suit has been decreed by playing fraud with the Court on the basis of forged and fabricated agreement to sell and concealment of material facts and mis-representation, the executing Court was required to frame a specific issue on the question of fraud and decide the controversy after permitting the petitioner to adduce evidence. It is further argued that huge loss would be caused to the petitioner in case he is dispossessed of the suit house. Counsel made a mercy plea that as the petitioner has a child with special requirements, dispossession from the house would be of serious consequence for his family including that special child.