SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(SC) 133

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. SHINGHAL AND D.A. DESAI, JJ.
Zila Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
Hazari and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1806-1808 of 1969, D/- 15-2-1979.
Advocates appeared
Mr. H. K. Puri and Mr. V. K. Bahl, Advocates for Appellants; M/s. Janardhan Sharma and Jitendra Sharma, Advocates, for Respondents.

Advocates:
H.K.PURI, JANARDAN SHARMA, JITENDRA SHARMA, V.K.Bahl

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 133Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XX, Rule 14, Order XXI, Rule 16, Section 47 – Decrees of pre-emption – Appeals by certificate under Article 133 (1) (c) of Constitution granted by High Court of Punjab & Haryana arise from three Execution Petitions filed by the present appellants for executing three decrees obtained by one Neki in three suits filed by him for pre-emption, to recover physical possession of lands involved in the suits. – Decrees in favour of Neki were confirmed finally by this Court in Civil Appeals – Judgment of this Court is reported in Hazari v. Neki (1968) 2 SCR 833 . – Facts which ultimately resulted in decrees for pre-emption in favour of Neki are fully set out at pages 834-835 of reported judgment and repeating the same would merely add to length of this judgment. – Suffice to state that there is no dispute that decrees for pre-emption were passed in favour of Neki against the original vendor and his vendees Hazari and others and satisfaction of condition in decrees of pre-emption for payment or deposit of the amounts as directed by Court within stipulated time is not questioned in the present proceedings. – Held, It would appear that if the sale deed in respect of land on its proper construction would show that decree itself was assigned obviously application for execution would be maintainable under O. XXI, Rule 16. – But if appellants do not fall within four corners of O. XXI, Rule 16 and they appear not to fall within four corners of it, because though land, subject matter of decree is sold to appellants, decree itself is not assigned, they would nonetheless be able to maintain application for execution under S. 146 as persons claiming under the decree-holder. – Respondents cannot have both ways. – If deed evidenced transfer of decree by assignment then O. XXI. Rule 16 would be attracted but if, as it appears, there is no transfer of decree by assignment, lands having been sold by decree-holder after perfecting his title and purchased by the present appellants they would be persons claiming under original pre-emptor decree-holder Neki and if Neki could have made an application for execution of decree as decree-holder, the present appellants, as purchasers of land from Neki would certainly be claiming under Neki and, therefore, their application for execution would certainly be maintainable under S. 146. – In this connection it would be advantageous to refer to Saila Bala Dassi v. Nirmala Sundari Dassi, 1958 SCR 1287 wherein it has been in terms held that S. 146 was introduced for the first time in Civil Procedure Code 1908 with the object of facilitating the exercise of rights by persons in whom they came to be vested by devolution or assignment and being a beneficent provision should be construed liberally so as to advance justice and not in a restricted or technical sense. – Viewed from this angle the present appellants must succeed because they purchased land from pre-empter Neki and the validity of sale being now beyond dispute, they are persons claiming under Neki whose right to execute the decree was never disputed and, therefore, appellants claiming under the vendor Neki would be able to maintain an application for execution under S. 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure. – Appellants are thus entitled to execute the decree for possession. – Appeals Allowed

Judgment

DESAI, J.:- These appeals by certificate under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana arise from three Execution Petitions filed by the present appellants for executing three decrees obtained by one Neki (since deceased) in three suits bearing Nos. 313, 360 and 369 of 1961 filed by him for pre-emption, to recover physical possession of the lands involved in the suits. The decrees in favour of Neki were confirmed finally by this Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 1148, 1656 and 2341 of 1966 decided on 25th January 1968. The Judgment of this Court is reported in Hazari v. Neki (1968) 2 SCR 833 . The facts which ultimately resulted in decrees for pre-emption in favour of Neki are fully set out at pages 834-835 (of SCR) : (at pp. 1206, 1207 of AIR) of the reported judgment and repeating the same would merely add to the length of this judgment. Suffice to state that there is no dispute that decrees for pre-emption were passed in favour of Neki against the original vendor Dhara Singh and his vendees Hazari and others and the satisfaction of the condition in the decrees of pre-emption for payment or deposit of the amounts as directed by the Court within the stipulated time is not questioned in the present proceedings.

2. It appears that the trial court decreed the suits for pre-emption in favour of Neki on 7th November 1962 simultaneously imposing the condition to deposit certain amounts in the three suits by or before 3rd December 1962. The various amounts were duly deposited in the three decrees by Neki, the decree-holder, on 3rd December 1962. Soon thereafter, on 5th December 1962 Neki sold the lands in respect of which he got the decrees to Zila Singh and others, the present appellants. The present appellants are subsequent vendees but they will be referred to as the appellants in this judgment. The former vendees would be referred to as first vendees, the sale in whose favour gave rise to the cause of action for pre-emption in favour of Neki against the original vendor Dhara Singh.

3. After the sale in favour of the present appellants, they applied to be joined as parties to the appeals preferred by the first vendees against the decrees for pre-emption which were then pending in the High Court and the Court directed by its order dated 13th July, 1963 that the present appellants be joined as parties to the appeals subject to just legal exceptions. The appellants then filed Execution Applications Nos. 295, 296, 297/64 seeking to execute the decrees to recover actual possession of lands purchased by them from Neki. Original Vendor Dhara Singh and the first vendees filed their objections challenging the right of the present vendees to execute the decrees. Principal contention raised was that the sale deed of lands in favour of the appellants did not envisage assignment of the decrees and that the right of pre-emption being a personal right, the decree could not be assigned and, therefore, the present appellants who were subsequent vendees from pre-emptor Neki, were not entitled and had no locus standi to execute the decrees granted in favour of Neki. The executing Court after examining the relevant provisions contained in Section 47 and Order XXI, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure rejected the objections raised by the first vendees and held that the present appellants were entitled to execute the decrees and directed warrant for possession to be issued. The first vendees preferred three appeals being Nos. 25/14, 26/14 and 27/14 of 1968 to the District Court at Rohtak. The learned Additional District Judge who heard these appeals, by a common order rejected the appeals and confirmed the order of the trial Court observing that the pre-emptor having deposited the purchase price as directed by the Court, in accordance with the terms of the decrees, his title to the lands was perfected from the date of deposit as provided in Order XX, Rule 14 (1) (b), C. P. C., the appellants as purchase

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top