LEKH RAJ Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Property of Bhagwan Dass Verma and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi, predecessor -in -interest of respondents No. 2 to 4, hereinafter referred to as judgment debtors, was sold in an auction towards the satisfaction of the decree passed in civil suit No. 75 of 1979 in January 9, 1981 by this Court. The immovable property, subject matter of dispute, was purchased by S/Shri Kapil Dev Sood and Karam Chand in equal shares on 16.12.1983. Respondents No. 5 to 9 are successors -in -interest of Kapil Dev Sood.

(2.) It appears respondents No.2 and 3 filed objections (OMP No. 481 of 1983) under Section 47 read with order 21 rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure on December 30,1983 saying that the property, subject of auction, was succeeded by them under a will by their grand -father and did not belong to the original judgment debtors Bhagwan Dass and Shanti Devi. These objections were dismissed for want of prosecution on May 18, 1984. On the same day, the sale of property was confirmed in favour of Karam Chand and Kapil Dev Sood. On an application made by Hardayal Verma and Deepak Verma, the order dated May 18, 1994 was recalled and the objection petition was restored to its original number. The objections were ultimately dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on October 9, 1991.

(3.) Auction purchasers moved an application on December 19, 1991 (OMP No. 7/92) for the delivery of possession of the property in question. On August 27, 1999, appellant Lekh Raj filed objections (OMP No. 419 of 1999) under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However these objections were treated under Order 21 Rule 97, 98, 99 and 101 of the Code. According to the objector/appellants by an agreement dated September 25, 1997, Kapil Dev Sood inducted him as tenant in two rooms, kitchen, a bath room and open verandah on the third storey and one room on the top floor of the building in dispute on a monthly rental of rupees 300. He paid rupees 900 as advance rent for three months to the auction purchaser Kapil Dev Sood. Kapil Dev Sood, it be noticed, expired on February 3, 1998. The Objection Petition was resisted by auction purchaser Karam Chand and legal heirs of the other auction purchaser Kapil Dev Sood. According to the auction purchasers the objector was never inducted as tenant by deceased Kapil Dev Sood. Learned Single Judge on the appreciation of the evidence led by the Objector and the auction purchaser, held that the objector was never inducted as tenant by deceased Kapil Dev. Learned Single Judge noticed that the original agreement was not filed by the Objector. Only Xerox copy, of the agreement was placed on record, which contained signatures of the parties and the witnesses. However, the evidence led by the objector to show that Xerox copy of the agreement was taken before the signing of the agreement. The deposition of the objector was not found to be reliable.