Back
ARUN KUMAR JHA
Zaibunnisha Wife of Late Makdum Khan – Appellant
Versus
Naseema Khatoon Wife of Nurul Hoda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Munsif, Dehri-on-Sone, Rohtas in Execution Case No. 01 of 2013, whereby and where under the petition dated 23.01.2014 filed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rules 97 and 99 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) and also the petitions dated 19.04.2018 and 06.09.2018 have been rejected.
2. The conspectus of the case, as it emerges from the record, is that one Khadim Khan was the ancestor of the petitioners. Khadim Khan was married with Rabia @ Rabia Khatoon and out of the said wedlock, one son, namely Makdum Khan and three daughters, namely Anisha Khatoon, Kaniz Khatoon and Buchun Khatoon were born. Rabia Khatoon died in the year 1955 and after her death, Khadim Khan solemnized marriage with Ashma Bibi @ Ashma Khatoon and out of the said wedlock, Naseema Khatoon was born. Ashma Khatoon died in the year 1974. Khadim Khan died on 24.12.1984 leaving behind Makdum Khan, Anisha Khatoon, Kaniz Khatoon, Buchun Khatoon and Naseema Khatoon as his legal heirs/representatives. Khadim Khan solemnized marriages of her da
The court affirmed that mere interest in property does not grant standing to object in execution proceedings if title has been conclusively determined.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a decree obtained by a tenant against a licensee can be executable against subsequent purchasers who are in possession without any lawful decr....
The executing court is competent to consider all questions raised by the persons offering obstruction against execution of the decree and pass appropriate order, which is to be treated as a decree. T....
Execution of joint decrees remains valid even with subsequent transfers of interest by decree-holders, and a judgment-debtor cannot escape execution by claiming ownership.
A third party claiming under a judgment debtor cannot file an application under Order XXI Rule 97; they must file under Rule 99 instead.
The trial court's dismissal of the suit was upheld, emphasizing that the plaintiffs had alternative remedies under the Code of Civil Procedure, making the suit not maintainable.
Joint tenants cannot be dispossessed without due process, and their rights devolve upon the death of the original tenant.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
