ISHARI RAM PANERI Vs. GANGA BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications have been filed by the same person named Ishari Ram Paneri, who was an auetion-purchaser in two execution cases. The applications are directed against an order dated 8th June, 1961, passed in two miscellaneous cases Nos. 139 and 140, instituted by one Ganga Bhugat, Opposite Party No. 1 in both these cases, who was an applicant under Order 21, rule 100, Code of Civil Procedure, which gave rise to the miscellaneous cases in the court below. It appears that in two money suits instituted in the vear 1950. the decree-holder. Opposite Party, had obtained money decrees against Jagal Bhagat and Hazari Bhagat: and two execution cases were levied numbered as 280 and 281 of 1956. Miscellaneous Case No. 139 of 1960 arose out of Execution Case No. 280 of 1956 and Miscellaneous Case No. 140 of 1960 arose out of Exccution Case No. 281 of 1956. In the execution cases sides look place on the 3rd July, 1957: and in Execution Case No. 280, the present petitioner purchased portions of eight plots. In Exceution Case No. 281. the petitioner purchased a portion of plot No. 313. There was another purchaser named Rampujan. with whose case we are not concerned at the moment. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, he obtained delivery of possession on the 4th October. 1960 : and on the 24th October. 1960, Opposite Party No 1 filed his applications under Order 21, Rule 100. The applicant's ease was that the land over which delivery of possession had been effected in favour of the petitioner of this Court, was the ancestral kasi land of the applicant of which he was in possession and from which he had been dispossessed by the delivery of possession. Thus, the applicant had asked to be restored to possession. not being a party to the decrees. The contention of the petitioner of this Court was that he had taken delivery of possession of the shares of Hazari Bhagat and Jagat Bhagat: and the applicant had no concern with the properties of which delivery of possession had been given to the auction-purchaser. A further objection had also boon taken to the effect that the same properties had been attached before judgment, in the original suit, and Ganga Bhagat had preferred a claim against altarbment with respect to plot No 183 only: and the attachment order had been vacated. It was thus urged that the application with respect to the other lands in question was barred by construe tive res judicata.

(2.) Upon the contentions raised by the parties; the learned Munsif has held against the present petitioner, to the effect that the application of Opposite Party No. 1 was not barred by constructive res judieata: and be has held that upon the ease of dispossession set up by the applicant under Order 21, Rule 100, he was entitled to be put in joint possession of the land claimed by him.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in these cases has contended that delivery of possession in favour of Rampujan had been given in 1958 and. therefore. Opposite Party No. 1 cannot now be succcssfully put in joint possession with respect to the properties delivered to Rampujan by virtue of the present application filed in 1960. It appears to me that this contention does not arise because Rampujan is not a party in these proceedings Opposite Party No. 1 has been ordered to be put in possession, meaning thereby in joint possession with Ishari Ram Paneri; and, as delivery of possession to him had been effected on the 4th October, 1960, the present applications under Order 21, Rule 100, filed on the 24lh October, 1960, were well within the period of limitation.