1988 Supreme(Raj) 69

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : S.C.AGRAWAL
MOHD.ALEEM - Appellant
Versus
MAQSOOD ALAM - Respondent
CIV. REVN. 589 Of 1984
Decided On : 03/07/1988

The principle of lis pendens is applicable to a transfer of property during the pendency of a suit that is ultimately compromised by the parties and a compromise decree is passed in terms of the compromise.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - Execution of decree - Compromise decree - Lis pendens - Applicability - Transfer of property during pendency of suit - Effect - Compromise decree covering matters extraneous to suit - Validity - Execution - Objection - Maintainability - Succession certificate - Necessity - Legal representatives of deceased judgment-debtor - Impleading - Procedure - Intermeddlers - Impleading as legal representatives - Permissibility - Adverse possession - Acquisition of title - Hostility of possession - Requirement - Judgment - Validity - Consideration of evidence - Necessity.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner and non-petitioner 4 claimed title over the property in dispute on the basis of an oral gift and a registered gift deed made by Smt. Fatima Begum during the pendency of a suit filed by Khurshid Alam against Smt. Fatima Begum. The suit was compromised and a compromise decree was passed by the High Court declaring Khurshid Alam as the owner of the property. After the death of Khurshid Alam and Smt. Fatima Begum, the heirs and legal representatives of Khurshid Alam filed an execution petition for the execution of the compromise decree. The petitioner and non-petitioner 4 objected to the execution petition claiming ownership of the property. The Additional Civil Judge rejected the objections of the petitioner and non-petitioner 4.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the compromise decree was binding on the petitioner and non-petitioner 4 as the principle of lis pendens was applicable to the transfer of property during the pendency of the suit. The compromise decree, even if it covered matters extraneous to the suit, was not inexecutable. The objection that the compromise decree was obtained by fraud could not be raised at the stage of execution. The execution petition was not barred by the provisions of Section 214(1)(b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, as it was not a petition for execution of a decree for payment of a debt. The provisions of Section 50, C.P.C. were duly complied with as the petitioner and non-petitioner 4 were impleaded as opposite parties in the execution petition and notices were issued to them. The petitioner and non-petitioner 4 could be impleaded as legal representatives of Smt. Fatima Begum in the execution proceedings as they were claiming their title over the property through her. The petitioner and non-petitioner 4 could not acquire title over the property in dispute by adverse possession as their possession was not hostile during the lifetime of Smt. Fatima Begum. The judgment of the Additional Civil Judge was a valid judgment as it considered the evidence on record and gave reasons for rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner and non-petitioner 4.

Issues: 1. Whether the principle of lis pendens is applicable to a transfer of property during the pendency of a suit that is ultimately compromised by the parties and a compromise decree is passed in terms of the compromise? 2. Whether a compromise decree covering matters extraneous to the suit is executable? 3. Whether an objection that a compromise decree was obtained by fraud can be raised at the stage of execution? 4. Whether an execution petition is barred by the provisions of Section 214(1)(b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, if it is not a petition for execution of a decree for payment of a debt? 5. Whether the provisions of Section 50, C.P.C. are duly complied with if the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor are impleaded as opposite parties in the execution petition and notices are issued to them? 6. Whether the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor can be impleaded in the execution proceedings if they are claiming their title over the property through the deceased judgment-debtor? 7. Whether the petitioner and non-petitioner 4 could acquire title over the property in dispute by adverse possession if their possession was not hostile during the lifetime of Smt. Fatima Begum? 8. Whether the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge is a valid judgment if it considers the evidence on record and gives reasons for rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner and non-petitioner 4?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the principle of lis pendens is applicable to a transfer of property during the pendency of a suit that is ultimately compromised by the parties and a compromise decree is passed in terms of the compromise. 2. Yes, a compromise decree covering matters extraneous to the suit is executable. 3. No, an objection that a compromise decree was obtained by fraud cannot be raised at the stage of execution. 4. No, an execution petition is not barred by the provisions of Section 214(1)(b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, if it is not a petition for execution of a decree for payment of a debt. 5. Yes, the provisions of Section 50, C.P.C. are duly complied with if the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor are impleaded as opposite parties in the execution petition and notices are issued to them. 6. Yes, the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor can be impleaded in the execution proceedings if they are claiming their title over the property through the deceased judgment-debtor. 7. No, the petitioner and non-petitioner 4 could not acquire title over the property in dispute by adverse possession if their possession was not hostile during the lifetime of Smt. Fatima Begum. 8. Yes, the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge is a valid judgment if it considers the evidence on record and gives reasons for rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner and non-petitioner 4.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed and the non-petitioners 1, 2 and 3 were entitled to their costs.