LALJI SINGH Vs. BALBHADRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision No. 386 of 1939 arises out of Miscellaneous Case No. 498 of 1938. The petitioner claims to be a private purchaser from the recorded tenants. The opposite party obtained rent decrees against the recorded tenants and in execution of those decrees delivery of possession was obtained. The petitioners filed applications under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C. In this particular civil revision it is not necessary to go into the details of the case because it appears to be incompetent. The case was decided under Order 21, Rule 100, in favour of several persons jointly, some of whom happened to be minors and are opposite party Nos. 5, 6, 9 and 10. They were made parties in this application also but as their guardian's cost was not deposited the application was dismissed against them, with the result that if any interference is made with the order passed by the Court below we shall have two contradictory orders in this case.

(2.) I accept the contention of Mr. R.K. Choudhry, appearing on behalf of the opposite party, that this application is incompetent: vide Rajeshwari Prasad Singh V/s. Saheb Singh, AIR (1939) Pat 198. Civil Revision No. 387 of 1939 arises out of Miscellaneous Case No. 314 of 1938. Here also the petitioners were private purchasers from the recorded tenants. Those tenants were not recognized. Before the present application under Order 21, Rule 100, was filed the petitioners had filed a title suit for a declaration that their purchase should be recognized but that suit was dismissed by the judgment Ex. E-2 and decree Ex. 4. Even during the pendency of the rent suits the applicants were interveners and this particular point about their title-was decided against them in Ex. E-l.

(3.) The Court below has come to the conclusion that the petitioners had no locus standi to file an objection under Order 21, Rule 100. Mr. Sukul, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has drawn my attention to the wording of Order 21, Rule 100 and says that the Court below should have come to a finding whether the petitioners were in actual possession or not and that it was for the Court below to go into the question of title. As against that my attention has been drawn to the decision in AIR 1918 Pat 48 Panoharatan Koeri V/s. Ram Sahay Singh, where it has been held that the purchaser of the whole or part of an occupancy holding not transferable by custom is a representative of the judgment debtor and entitled to object under Section 47, Civil P.C., to a sale of the holding in execution of a decree for rent and is not entitled to maintain proceedings under Order 21, Rule 100. The reason for this view is not far to seek.