PARMINDER KAUR Vs. MANJINDER KAUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially Civil Revision No. 1243 of 2012 by Parminder Kaur was filed, in which notice of motion was issued. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.07.2013 passed by this Court, it was observed that civil revision is not maintainable. The Civil Revision was ordered to be returned and to be numbered as ESA. Consequently, ESA No. 40 of 2013 was assigned to the case and was listed for disposal thereafter.

(2.) Appellant -Paramjit Kaur is the objector in the execution of the decree. Appellant -objector claimed that previously the judgment debtor and his brothers, namely, Nand Singh and Sardara Singh, were co -sharers in joint possession of the land measuring 7 bigha -14 Biswas -19 Biswasi, situated at village Mullapur. Said Nand Singh, Sardara Singh and judgment debtor sold 4 bigha land to the objector -appellant, vide three different registered sale deeds dated 24.07.2002, 24.07.2002 and 26.07.2002 and the objector -appellant was put in possession of aforesaid 4 bigha of land by the vendors. The Mutation Nos. 1441, 1442 and 1461 were sanctioned in favour of the objector -appellant on the basis of the aforesaid sale deeds, which were duly reflected in the revenue record. In the year 2003, judgment debtor and his brothers threatened to interfere in the possession of the objector -appellant over the land purchased by her, which prompted objector -appellant to file suit for injunction against them qua 4 bigha of land purchased by her. The Civil Suit No. 94, dated 12.04.2003, titled as "Parminder Kaur Vs. Nand Singh and others" was contested by the vendors of the appellant, which was decreed in her favour and objector was held to be owner in possession of the property so purchased by her and defendants therein were restrained from interfering in the possession of the objector.

(3.) The judgment -debtor and his brothers being influential persons having say in the police as well as in the revenue authorities illegally got initiated the proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. and obtained illegal order dated 13.08.2003, the then Sub Divisional Magistrate Bassi Pathana ordered that attachment of land under Sec. 146(1) Cr.P.C. and Tehsildar was appointed as receiver to take possession of the disputed land and the report was also made in the revenue record. One FIR No. 97, dated 09.08.2002 under Ss. 406/420 IPC was also got lodged by judgment debtor and his brothers, but the version of the prosecution qua that FIR was not believed by the Court and the accused were acquitted. The judgment -debtor and decree holder were clever persons and they stealthily prepared agreement to sell dated 13.11.2000 in which judgment -debtor Mehar Singh was vendor and Manjinder Kaur was vendee in respect of 2 bigha 11 biswas 13 biswasi @ Rs. 2,40,000/ - An earnest money to the tune of Rs. 1,91,000/ - was shown to have been paid and target date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 12.01.2001. The vendor and vendee in collusion with each other started litigation inter se between them and decree holder filed a Civil Suit for possession by way of specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale dated 13.11.2000. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 25.01.2005. It was one sided suit which was never contested in order to defeat the rights of the objector -appellant. The decree dated 25.01.2005 was obtained from the Court by concealing material facts from the Court and the same was not contested by judgment -debtor with due care and caution. Decree holder was having the knowledge of sale deeds dated 24.07.2002, 24.07.2002 and 26.07.2002 in favour of the objector -appellant as well as qua the proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C., but the court was never informed of those facts and the objector was not arrayed as a party to the said suit. The objector was having no knowledge about the filing of the suit by the vendor as well as passing of the impugned judgment and decree under execution. Though the judgment -debtor had filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2005, but the same was an eyewash and was an attempt to legalize the illegalities in litigation in order to hide the mala fides. The decree holder filed the execution and got the sale deed executed through the agency of the Court and on the basis of sale deed also got sanctioned Mutation No. 1535 in her favour by giving false details. The objector -appellant on coming to know about the illegal mutation, filed an appeal against the order dated 02.04.2007 sanctioning the Mutation No. 1535 but the appeal was dismissed. The decree holder in connivance with the revenue officials as well as the bailiff got made false reports prepared regarding the execution of warrants of possession which were never executed at the spot and the entire proceedings under Sec. 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. were materially suppressed and the factum of the passing of judgment and decree dated 21.07.2004 in Civil Suit No. 94 dated 12.4.2003 was also concealed. On coming to know about the judgment and decree under execution at the time of sanctioning of illegal Mutation No. 1535 in the month of June, 2007, the objector filed suit challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2005, which is pending and also filed objection on 26.03.2008 in the execution sought to be done in judgment and decree dated 25.01.2005.