SACHIDA PRASAD SINGH Vs. GIRAJA PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three applications on behalf of the three purchasers from the judgment-debtors are directed against the order dated 26-7-1975, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Gaya in Misc. Cases Nos. 6, 8 and 7 of 1975. Since these applications arise out of a common order and against the same opposite party, they have been heard together and this judgment shall govern them all.

(2.) The facts of the cases are common. One Srichand Sao obtained a money decree against several persons including one Chandrika Singh alias Chando Singh. The decree was put in execution in Execution Case No. 1 of 1964 and the lands given in Talika were attached on 3-2-1964. Thereafter the decree-holder transferred the decree to Girja Prasad Singh and Nagendra Narayan Singh who were substituted in the execution as decree-holders in place of Srichand. On 9-10-83 Sachida Prasad Singh ((petitioner in C. R. 1088/75) purchased a piece of land from the judgment-debtor Chando Singh by virtue of a registered sale deed and since the date of his purchase he claims to be coming in cultivating possession thereof, On the same date Smt. Bachi Devi (petitioner in C. R. 1135/75) purchased some lands from the judgment-debtor by means of a registered sale deed and came into possession thereof. Similarly, on the same date Satya Narain Singh (petitioner in C. R. 1134/75) purchased some land from the judgment-debtor by virtue of a registered sale deed and came into cultivating possession. The lands purchased by these petitioners form part of the attached lands. In order to get the lands released from attachment, the purchasers (petitioners) preferred claims on 26-3-75 and 8-4-75 under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be called as 'the Code') giving rise to Misc. Cases Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of 1975. The decree-holders filed rejoinder substantially on the ground that the purchases of the claimants were fictitious and inoperative and they were not in possession.

(3.) Both the parties examined a number of witnesses and filed documents in support of their respective cases. The court below after hearing the parties and discussing the evidence on the records, came to the conclusion:--