SARITA GUPTA Vs. SUDHIR JAJU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.1.1992 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1 Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Execution No. 30 of 1991, whereby the application of the decree holder non-petitioner No. 1 Sudhir Jaju seeking police help for execution of the warrant under Order 21 Rule 35 Code of Civil Procedure for taking possession of the property in dispute from the petitioner/objector, Smt. Sarita Gupta has been granted.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the Income Tax Department sold a plot bearing No. B. 15 situated at Shiv Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur to the Vikas Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited (hereinafter referred to as Vikas Samiti). The Vikas Samiti allotted this disputed Plot No. B.15 situated at Shiv Marg, Banai Park, Jaipur to Smt. Gopi Thawani on 21.2.1981 though an allotment letter and the vacant possession was handed over to Smt. Gopi Thawani and Smt. Gopi Thawani constructed a room on the said plot. In the month of Sept., 1986 Smt. Gopi Thawani executed two registered sale deeds on 1.9.1986 and 4.9.1986 respectively in favour of Sh. Shubh Karan Agrawal and Manu Agrawal, who constructed a boundary wall on the land in question and also took electric and water connections from the respective departments. Therafter Mr. Subh Karan Agrawal and Smt. Manju Agrawal executed an agreement in favour of the petitioner Smt. Sarita Gupta on 30.4.1988 for Rs. 1,31,000.00. After paying whole consideration the petitioner constructed two storeyed building on the aforesaid land with basement in the year 1988 and a telephone was also got installed by the husband of the petitioner. The ration card of the family members was also in favour of the petitioner which shows that the petitioner along with her family has been residing in the said property.

(3.) On 11.12.1981 Prabhu Dayal Nazir came at the site for taking possession of the disputed land. The petitioner thereupon resisted the execution of warrant as she was a bona fide Transfer of Property Act, Sec. purchaser of the property in dispute for value without notice and had invested a lot of money over.