The court established that claims to property under execution must be substantiated by valid title and cannot be used to delay proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Prakash Gupta, J. - Order 18/08/2021Civil Execution First Appeal No. 4/2021 has been filed by the objector-appellant (for short, 'the objector') under Section 96 CPC readwith Order 21 Rule 103 CPC against the order dated 20.7.2021 passed by the Executing Court in Civil Objection No. 98/2019 in Civil Execution Petition No. 22/2017 by which the objections filed by the objector under Order 21 Rule 58 have been dismissed. Similarly, Civil Execution First Appeal No. 5/2021 has been filed by the Objector under Section 96 CPC readwith Order 21 Rule 103 against the order dated 3.8.2021 passed by the Executing Court in Civil Objection No. 98/2019 in Execution Petition No. 22/2017, by which the objections filed by the Objector under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC have been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff-decree holder (for short, 'the decree holder') filed a suit against the respondent-defendant-judgment debtor (for short, 'the judgment debtor') for recovery of Rs. 81,24,786.23/-, which was decreed by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Tees Hajari Court, New Delhi vide its judgment dated 8.11.2016. The decree holder filed execution petition for satisfaction of the decretal amount alongwith interest, which, due to the property of the judgment debtor being situated in Jaipur, was transferred to Jaipur. During the pendency of the execution petition, the objector filed objections which came to be dismissed vide impugned orders. Hence, these two Civil Execution First Appeals.

3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the objector submits that decree holder disclosed two properties of the judgment debtor, (i) House N. 231/C, Gyan Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur admeasuring 708 Sq. Yards and (ii) Shop No. 115, Ganpati Plaza, MI Road, Jaipur admeasuring 700 Sq. Ft. He further submits that objector is the owner of House No. 231/C, Gyan Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur as possession of the said property was handed over to her by the judgment debtor on the basis of a family settlement by way of gift deed dated 20.7.2009, which was got registered on 12.9.2018. In this way, the objector is having the possession over the attached property since 2009 and the decree holder has no concern whatsoever with the attached property. He further submits that under sub-rule (2) of Rule 58 of Order 21 CPC, the executing Court ought to have adjudicated upon the objections filed by the objector and no separate suit could have been filed. For this purpose, the Executing Court was to hold a full-fledged enquiry and decide the dispute on merits, but it did not do so.

4. He further submits that since ex-parte judgment and decree came to be passed against the judgment debtor by Tis Hazari Court at Delhi on 8.11.2016, he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was allowed vide order dated 24.7.2018. Thereafter the decree holder filed CM (M) 940/2018 & CM Appl. No. 33154/2018 before Delhi High Court and the Delhi High Court vide its order dated 4.7.2019 allowed the petition, set-aside the order dated 24.7.2018 passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the application filed by the judgment debtor under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. He further submits that against the order dated 4.7.2019 passed by the High Court, the judgment debtor filed SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court (Diary No. of which is 19042/2021), and the same is pending adjudication. He further submits that property worth about Rs. 7.00 crores is being sold at a very petty amount of Rs. 2.60 crores. He further submits that vide order dated 8.1.2015 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal in case No. 27/2013, the property was attached. The objector paid Rs. 12.00 lakh and got the property redeemed. This aspect of the matter is very relevant. He further submits that unregistered gift deed can be seen for collateral purposes. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:

(1) Bondar Singh and others Versus Nihal Singh and others reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1905

(2) Sha