JOGINDER SINGH Vs. PRITAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Relying upon the technicalities of procedural law, the decree-holder-Joginder Singh, seeks to deny title to the property in suit of the plaintiff Pritam Kaur, a third party, who had purchased it from the judgment-debtor-Raunak Singh.

(2.) The factual background relevant to the matter here is that on September 26, 1963, a decree for Rs. 380.95 paise was passed in favour of Joginder Singh against Raunak Singh. On November 2, 1963, an order was passed by the executing Court for attachment of moveable property of Raunak Singh. In pursuance of this order, the bailiff, on November 12, 1963, wrongly and without jurisdiction attached instead the property in suit which then belonged to Raunak Singh. Raunak Singh later sold the house to Sham Singh on December 26, 1963 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Later, in execution, the house was sold by Court-auction on July 5, 1965 to the decree-holder, the sale consideration being no more than the decretal amount. Prior thereto, however, Sham Singh had filed objections against the attachment of the house on February 13, 1965, which were subsequently dismissed in default on July 17, 1965.

(3.) About two years thereafter, that is on December 26, 1967, the decree-holder-Joginder Singh, applied under Order 21 Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), for warrants of possession of the property in suit. Delivery of possession was however resisted by the plaintiff-Pritam Kaur with the result that on August 29, 1969, Joginder Singh asked for delivery of possession with police help under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure.