SUNITA RANI CHAURASIA Vs. MOHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUNITA Rani daughter-in-law of the judgment debtor has preferred the revision petition against the order dated 8.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, dismissing the appeal against the order dated 14.2.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ambala Cantt. dismissing the objection petition in the execution qua the order of ejectment dated 18.8.1981 passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala.

(2.) THE facts in the background of the case are that an ex-parte ejectment order was passed on 18.8.1981 in favour of Anand Dass Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents-decree holders (herein referred as the 'respondent Nos. 1 to 5') against Ram Kishan by the Rent Controller, Ambala. The application preferred by Ram Kishan for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Ambala on 27.10.1987, thereafter the decree holder preferred the execution in the year 1987, wherein the present petitioner filed the objection petition on 4.5.1996 claiming that Binda Parshad son of Ori Lal being the original owner had bequeathed the house in her favour vide Will dated 31.12.1968 executed at Meerut while he was residing at Hapur (U.P.) with the brother of the petitioner. Binda Parshad died on 9.1.1970. The petitioner came to know about the Will in the year 1987, thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil suit in the year 1987 challenging the impugned order which was ultimately withdrawn by her. However, Ram Kishan had no title over the property as he had sold the same in favour of Anand Dass which was illegal null and void. Since the petitioner is in possession of the suit property in her own right being the owner on the basis of the Will executed by Binda Parshad, therefore, the decree passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala in favour of Anand Dass and now inherited by the petitioner was not enforceable.

(3.) BOTH the courts below declined to accept the plea set up by the petitioner with the observations that the objection petition being fraudulent and vexatious was filed just to delay the execution petition. There was no requirement to frame issues and decide the matter afresh after inviting evidence of the parties. The same being vexatious and frivolous could be decided summarily.