PRIYANKA KUMARI Vs. URMILA SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present civil miscellaneous application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order, dtd. 24/8/2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge VIII, Patna, in Title Appeal No. 29 of 2021 whereby the Appellate Court has held that in the facts of the case, the petition under Order 21 Rule 99 of the C.P.C. is not maintainable, accordingly, has affirmed the order, dtd. 18/12/2021, passed by learned Sub-Judge IX, Patna, in Execution Case No. 40 of 2021. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the order, dtd. 18/12/2021, passed by the learned Sub-Judge IX, Patna, in Execution Case No. 40 of 2021 whereby the learned Sub-Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 99 holding it to be not maintainable.

(2.) Subject matter of the present dispute is the second floor of the residential house constructed over a small piece of land ad measuring 300 sq. ft. situated at Mohalla Machuatoli, pargana Azimabad, PS kadamkuan, District Patna, having ward No. 12 and Circle No. 9 MS plot No. 1141, 1142, 1152 Seat No. 79 Holding No. 27 (new). The property in question was purchased in an auction sale by one Late Sitaram Sao who was the brother of Late Binda Devi. Binda Devi was the grandmother of the petitioner. A certificate of sale, dtd. 27/5/1957, was issued in favour of Sitaram Sao under Sec. 20 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. By executing a deed of relinquishment bearing Deed No. 4901, dtd. 11/7/1957, registered at Patna, the property, in question, was relinquished in the name of grandmother of the petitioner Binda Devi and father of the petitioner Ranjit Sao, who was minor, aged about 11 years, at that time. A building G + 2 was constructed and the petitioner along with other family members started living there peacefully. Further case of the petitioner is that the property was purchased out of the family income and after the death of Binda Devi, the property devolved amongst all the partners who have jointly inherited the same. The respondent no. 1, who is the neighbour of the petitioner had an evil eye on the said property and accordingly, he induced the father of the petitioner to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 1 vide registered sale deed, dtd. 2/2/2010. The petitioner having come to know about the sale deed, dtd. 2/2/2010, filed a title suit bearing no. 515 of 2010 before the Sub-Judge 1st, Patna, for a declaration that sale deed dtd. 2/2/2010 is illegal, void, ineffective and fraudulent document and the same is incapable to bind the petitioner and other family members and further prayed for injunction. The said suit has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dtd. 21/10/2019 passed by learned Sub-Judge III, Patna. The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, filed Title Appeal No. 06 of 2022 before the District Appellate Court and the same is pending in the court of learned ADJ-XVIII.

(3.) The purchaser of the property i.e., respondent no. 1st set filed three eviction suits on the ground of default of rent and personal necessity. Two eviction suits were filed against the tenants who were residing at the ground floor and the second floor and one eviction suit was filed against the petitioner for the first floor. The present case pertains to eviction suit bearing no. 20 of 2011 filed against the tenant namely Geeta Devi/respondent no. 3, who was residing at second floor. Eviction Suit No. 20 of 2011 was decided in favour of the purchaser i.e., respondent no. 1 vide judgment and decree dtd. 25/3/2021. The respondent no. 1 filed an Execution Case No. 40 of 2021 on 27/8/2021 and on 24/11/2021 order for delivery of possession was issued. On 10/12/2021, the Court officers, along with the police personnel, came to the residential house and forcibly dispossessed the petitioner and her family members from the property under execution i.e., second floor. It is the claim of the petitioner that she and her family members repeatedly informed the Court Officers that tenant/Geeta Devi does not stay on the subject property, however, in the garb of evicting Geeta Devi, the petitioner was eventually evicted from the second floor. According to the petitioner, the tenant Geeta Devi, during the pendency of the eviction suit, vacated the tenanted premises of second floor and handed over the possession to the petitioner in the year 2019.