SHRI DEVI Vs. KASHIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions arise out of an order dated 23-5- 1983 passed by Munsif City, Jodhpur, in Civil Execution Case No. 51 of 1979, whereby the learned Munsif ordered that the applicant before the executing Court Smt. Shri Devi will not be evicted from the premises in question forcibly, in case if, is found that she is in possession of the property in her own right. The other objection by Smt. Shri Devi in her application, was decided against her.

(2.) In order to appreciate the controversies, which this Court is required to resolve in the present revision petitions, it would be proper to recall a few relevant facts. One Ramchandra obtained at decree for eviction against his tenant Asuram on 11-5-1974. He levied execration of the decree. During the pen-dency of the execution, he sold the house property to Kashi Ram and Smt. Kamla Devi by a registered sale deed dated 26-3-1981. The transferees were substituted as decree-holders in place of Ramchandra by the executing Court. Smt. Shri Devi on the basis of the agreement to sell by Ramehandra in her favour, instituted a civil suit against Smt. Kamla Devi and also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction in the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. That application was allowed and a temporary injunction was issued against Smt. Kamla Devi, one of the vendees. In the original suit by Smt. Shri Devi, the other vendee Kashi-ram was not a party. Subsequently he was made a party and an application for grant of temporary injunction was also moved against him, but that application was rejected by the trial court on 6-121982 and that order was upheld in appeal by this Court on 23-2-1983. Kashiram, one of the decree-holders-purchasers of the property, submitted an application on 8-4-1983 that warrant of possession was issued by the Court on 28-8-1982 and in execution of the warrant the possession officer of the Court went to the spot to deliver the possession, but the house was found locked. Thereupon he submitted an application on 31-8-1982 that possession may be delivered after breaking open the lock. On that the court had ordered on 1-919S2 to deliver possession after breaking open the lock. On the same date Smt. Shri Devi, wife of the judgment-debtor, submitted an objection petition stating that she had already filed an objection under Section 151, read with Order 21, Rule 97, C.P.C. The execution of the decree had been stayed in her suit against Smt. Kamla Devi, so she has got a legal right to continue to remain in possession of the house in question, so the decree-holders cannot evict her from the house in question forcibly with the police aid. Kashiram and Smt. Kamla Devi are the co-owners of the property in question and the property is undivided. In such a situation, the decree-holder is onty entitled to get constructive possession from her. It was prayed that the decree-holder may be put into the constructive possession of the property and it may further be ordered that she may not be put out of the property forcibly with the police aid. The teamed Munsif, by his order dated 20-5-1983 le-jerted the objection submitted by Smt. Shri Devi, under Section 151, road wrth Order 21, Rule 97, C.P.C., in which he held that the objector Smt. Shri Devi being third party, has no locus standi to get her right adjudicated, so she cannot interfere in the executing proceedings. After hearing the application under Section 151, C.P.C., dated 8-4-1983, the learned Munsif decided the application in the manner that Smt. Shri Devi shall not he put out of possession forcibly, in case it is found that she is in occupation of the property independently in her own right. Dissatisfied with this order dated May 23. 1983, Smt. Shri Devi, as well as Kashiram have preferred this revision.

(3.) I have heard Shri J. R. Tatia, learned coun-sel for Smt. Shri Devi and Shri P. C. Mathur, learned counsel for the decree-holders.