GAURI LAL Vs. SUJHAM DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER:- The petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Rama Nand (original plaintiff). Rama Nand had instituted a suit against the respondent (defendant 2) and one Ramayan Dassi (defendant 1) for a declaration that Ramayan Dassi could not have sold the suit land without the consent of the plaintiff as per the custom prevalent in the area since the land was inherited by her on the death of her husband and for the consequential relief of the cancellation of mutation entry recording the sale. It appears that in the course of the suit a compromise was arrived at between the parties according to which the plaintiff agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- to the defendants and the defendants agreed to hand over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff on receipt of such sum after harvesting the standing crop. On the basis of the compromise a decree for possession was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on July 25, 1975,"subject to payment of Rs.1000/- by the plaintiff to the defendants on or before 31st Oct. 1975 after harvesting the existing crop standing on the land in suit and without sowing any new crop"

(2.) The plaintiff failed to make the payment of the sum of Rs. 1000/- to the defendants on or before Oct.31, 1975. The said sum of Rs.1000/- was, however, deposited in the Court on Oct. 25, 1977, without obtaining prior permission. The plaintiff then filed an execution application on June 18, 1981, that is, nearly six-years after the decree was passed. The executing Court without issuing a show cause notice to the defendants issued a warrant for possession. On the strength of the said warrant for possession the defendants were dispossessed on July 16, 1981.

(3.) Thereupon, the defendants filed the objection petition, under S.47 of the Civil P.C. out of which this revision petition arises alleging, inter alia, that in view of noncompliance with the provisions of O.21, R.22, the proceedings which culminated into the dispossession of the defendants or anyone of them were illegal and invalid. Certain other pleas were also raised with which we are not concerned at the present stage and I must be taken to have expressed no opinion as regards those pleas. The executing Court held in favour of the defendants as regards the plea based on O.21, R.22 end held that the proceeding which culminated into the dispossession of defendants or anyone of them was illegal and invalid.