AHAD NAJAR Vs. PT RAM CHAND RAINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendantâ„¢s second appeal and arises out of the following circumstances: -

(2.) IN this appeal it is argued on behalf of the appellants that the plaintiff had never got symbolic possession of his share of the house and that his suit for partition was not maintainable. It is further argued that the formalities for delivery of symbolic possession were not complied with and therefore no possession had passed to the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to Order 21, Rule 96, C. P. Code which reads as under: -

(3.) IT is contended that the sale certificate was never affixed in some conspicuous place on the property and that there was no beat of drum announcing that the interest of the judgment debtors has been transferred to the purchaser and therefore the plaintiff had not got possession of his share in the property. Reference was made to clause (2) of Rule 35 of Order 21, C. P. C. which lays down: -