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

2024 Supreme(Gau) 556

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Kamala Devi Ajitsaria, W/o. Late Rukmanand Ajitsaria & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Seema Devi Patni, W/o. Sri Makhan Lal Patni & Ors. - Respondents
CRP(IO) No. 197 of 2023
Decided On : 22-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Ali, Mr. A. Ikbal.
For the Respondent:Mr. D. Das, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B.D. Deka.

Headnote:

Collusive Decree - Execution of Decree - Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code - The judgment discusses the application of Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code in the context of a collusive decree and the rights of a transferee pendente lite. It highlights the legal provisions and interpretations of Rule 102, and the court's reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram and Others and Silverline Forum (P) Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust. The court concludes that the application filed by the Respondent No.1 was not maintainable and directs the Executing Court to proceed with the execution in accordance with the decree.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a dispute over a plot of land and houses standing on it. The defendants filed a counter claim seeking declaration of fraudulent sale deed, ejectment of the plaintiff, and permanent injunction. After the trial court dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim, the plaintiff appealed, and the appeal was also dismissed. Subsequently, the plaintiff sold flats to a third party during the pendency of the suit and counter claim.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the application filed by the Respondent No.1 was not maintainable as the Respondent No.1, a transferee pendente lite, purchased the flats during the pendency of the suit and therefore could not invoke the provisions of Order XXI Rule 98 and 100 of the Code. The court rejected the application and directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution in accordance with the decree.

Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the application filed by the Respondent No.1 challenging the execution of the decree, specifically in view of the provisions of Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle that a transferee pendente lite has no right to resist or obstruct execution of a decree passed by a competent court, as established in the Supreme Court's judgment in Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram and Others and Silverline Forum (P) Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust. The court applied the provisions of Order XXI Rule 102 of the Code and concluded that the application filed by the Respondent No.1 was not maintainable.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application, rejected the application filed by the Respondent No.1, and directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution in accordance with the decree.

 

Heard Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. D. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1.

2. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Executing Court”) in Misc. (J) Case No.775/2022 arising out of Title Execution Case No.17/2022 whereby the prayer of the petitioners for rejection of the said application was turned down.

3. For deciding the instant proceedings, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which are narrated herein infra.

4. The Respondent No.2 herein had instituted a suit being Title Suit No.223/1997 seeking a declaration that the defendants (the petitioners herein) had no right to evict the Respondent No.2 i.e. the plaintiff, from the suit premises as described in the Schedule to the plaint without following the due process and for permanent injunction. The Schedule land as described in the said suit was a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas 17 Lechas covered by K.P. Patta No.661 of Dag No.1107 of village Sahar Guwahati 2nd Part, Mouza Guwahati wherein houses were standing thereon bearing Guwahati Municipal Corporation Holding No.388 of Ward No.XVIII.

5. The defendants in the said suit who are the petitioners herein filed a written statement-cum-counter claim denying the allegations made in the said suit and further seeking that the defendants had right, title and interest over the suit property; for declaration that the Sale Deed No.7213/1992 dated 30.11.1992 was fraudulent, collusive and void ab initio and the same did not confer any right, title and interest upon the Respondent No.2 herein over the suit property or any part thereof and for delivery and cancellation of the said deed; ejectment of the plaintiff/the Respondent No.2 herein from the suit property; recovery of khas possession of suit property by evicting and removing the plaintiff/Respondent No.2 herein and all his men, materials therefrom; for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff and his men, agents, servants, workmen from entering into the suit property and from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the defendants over the suit property; recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the wrong done to the godown, house structures on the suit land, for issuance of precept etc.

6. On the basis of the said suit so filed as well as the counter claim, as many as 6 issues were framed. After adducing the evidence by the parties, the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati vide a judgment and order dated 25.09.2006 dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim of the defendants/petitioners herein.

7. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the Respondent No.2 herein which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No.109/2006 before the Court of the District Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. Vide a judgment and decree dated 15.09.2007, the said appeal was dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the Respondent No.2 herein preferred an appeal before this Court which was registered and numbered as RSA No.56/2008.

8. At this stage, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of a development which took place post the dismissal of the appeal by the learned First Appellate Court. The Respondent No.1 in the instant proceedings purchased a RCC Roof with Super built up area with roof casting measuring 1307.06 sq. ft. marked as 303 on the 3rd floor of Sewda Complex together with parking space marked as Parking No.303 vide a registered deed of sale bearing Deed No.10558/08 dated 31.07.2008. The said Respondent No.1 further purchased another RCC Roof with Super built up area with roof casting measuring 1404 sq. ft marked as 304

      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