SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. BHUSHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE order, under challenge, objection application of the petitioners, in a pending execution, was dismissed. It is apparent from the records that the predecessor in interest of the respondents filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.2.1977. Suit was decreed. Appeal filed by the judgment debtor was dismissed on 21.5.1982. In his second appeal on 20.1.1983, it was ordered by this Court that the appellant therein, shall not alienate the property, in dispute, till disposal of the appeal. Appeal was admitted and ultimately dismissed on 11.8.2004. Very surprising and in a very clandestine manner petitioners joined hands with the judgment debtor and purchased the property, in dispute, in violation to the order passed by this Court, on 15.7.1997. To execute decree in favour of the respondents, when warrant of possession was issued, the petitioners filed objection application, by stating that he was a bona fide purchaser and further that even prior to the sale in his favour, he was in possession of the property as a tenant. The Court below has dismissed their objections, by observing thus:-

(2.) THIS Court feels that the opinion arrived at, is perfectly justified. Appellant is a person, who has purchased the property, in violation to the order passed by this Court, as such, he is not entitled to claim any equity in his favour. It appears that an attempt is being made to defeat the rights of the decree holders, by entering into manipulations. Reliance has been placed upon certain receipts, allegedly executed by the judgment debtor in favour of the appellant, to say that the appellant was a tenant before purchase of property by him. Original receipts were seen in Court and this Court is satisfied that such like receipts can be procured and prepared. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that reliance of counsel for the appellant upon Baljit Singh v. Balkar Singh and others, (2001-2) The Punjab Law Reporter, 315 and Anwarbi v. Pramod D.A.Joshi, (2002-1) Delhi Section 49, is of not help to the petitioners, as facts of those cases were altogether different. No case is made out for interference.