ADARSH KUMAR Vs. GURPARTAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is holding a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 05.11.1993 executed in his favour by Kartar Kaur. When plaintiff -appellant filed the execution application, objections were raised by sons of Kartar Kaur, judgment debtor claiming that the suit land had been sold to Gurpartap Singh respondent No.1 by registered sale deeds of the year 2005 and that since they were not owners of the suit land, they were unable to execute the sale deed as per the decree. The plaintiff contested the objections. Their objections were dismissed by the trial Court.

(2.) IT is not out of place to mention here that separate objection petition was filed under Order 21 Rules 98 and 100 CPC by respondent No.1 Gurpartap Singh as third party objector claiming that Kartar Kaur had died and mutation of inheritance had been sanctioned in favour of three sons of Kartar Kaur. It was also pleaded that the said objector had purchased the

(3.) LAND in dispute vide three registered sale deeds. The objections were contested by the appellant -decree holder claiming that the objector was having knowledge about the pendency of the proceedings as such the objector did not have any legal right to resist the decree. After dismissal of his objections, respondent No.1 filed appeal against order dated 21.03.2012. The first Appellate Court vide judgment dated 18.04.2013 has allowed the appeal observing that before disposal of the objection petition filed by the objector, it was incumbent upon the executing Court to decide the relevant issues by giving opportunity to lead evidence to the parties. Following issues were framed by the first Appellate Court: