SURJEET Vs. KAMLESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 23/1/2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonipat, whereby the objections (Annexure P-7) filed by the petitioners in the Execution Petition No.17 of 2021 titled "Kamlesh Vs. Pushp Lata', have been dismissed.

(2.) Admittedly, Kamlesh wife of Balwan Singh Malik (respondent No.1) had filed a suit for eviction/possession and for recovery of mesne profit with consequential relief of permanent injunction on 25/3/2014 against Pushp Lata, mother of the petitioners. The said suit for eviction was filed on the ground that respondent No.1/Kamlesh was the owner of the house in question on the basis of a registered sale deed dtd. 24/7/2008 and on the plea that the said house was let out by respondent No.1 to Pushp Lata on the monthly rent of Rs.1,500.00 per month, which was later enhanced to Rs.2,000.00 per month. It was further averred that since February, 2012, the said Pushp Lata stopped paying rent and accordingly a legal notice dtd. 16/7/2013 was issued for termination of the tenancy. In the said case, notice was issued, but the said Pushp Lata did not appear despite service and vide judgment and decree dtd. 18/9/2019 (Annexure P-5), the trial Court directed the said Pushp Lata to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of the judgment and also to pay the outstanding amount of rent of Rs.48,000.00 from March, 2012 @ Rs.2,000.00 per month till actual realization along with interest @ 6% p.a. A perusal of the said judgment would show that the registered sale deed dtd. 24/7/2008 was duly exhibited as Ex.PA. It has been fairly stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that an application for setting aside the said ex parte decree was filed by Pushp Lata, but however, the same has been dismissed and that there is no further challenge made to the said decree or the subsequent orders.

(3.) Respondent No.1 had filed an execution application for execution of the decree dtd. 18/9/2019 in her favour, but the petitioners as well as the said Pushp Lata had filed two separate objections, which have been dismissed by the trial Court, vide impugned order dtd. 18/4/2024. In the impugned order, it has been observed that the petitioners are claiming an agreement to sell from Ishwar Singh in favour of Om Pal, father of the petitioners and husband of Pushp Lata, and as per settled law, the agreement to sell does not make him the owner of the property and the persons become owners on the execution of a registered sale deed. Further, the said Pushpa Lata is a judgment debtor and thus, if any plea had to be taken in respect to any agreement to sell, the same should have been taken in the proceedings, in which, the judgment and decree dtd. 18/9/2019 was passed. With respect to plea of the petitioners, they were not parties in the earlier proceedings, the Executing Court had observed that once the mother i.e. Pushpa Lata was a party to the judgment and decree, which had attained finality, then, in view of explanation VI attached to Sec. 11 of CPC, finding against Pushp Lata would also be applicable qua other objectors, who are sons of said Pushp Lata.