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

2020 Supreme(HP) 252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Hardeep Kaur Gandhi and others – Petitioners
Versus
Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust and Others - Respondents
CMPMO No.1115 of 2019
Decided On : 25-02-2020

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajinder Sharma and Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Bhupinder Gupta and Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocates, with Mr. Ajeet Singh Jaswal, Mr. Janesh Gupta, Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Mr. Abhinandan Thakur and Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocates

The main legal point established in the judgment is the finality of previous adjudications, the enforceability of the decree, and the proper execution process as per the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

Headnote:

Will - Property Dispute - Civil Procedure Code - [Rockdene Estate, Will, Trust Deed, Possession, Execution] - The court discussed the property dispute related to Rockdene Estate, involving a Will, a Trust Deed, possession, and execution proceedings. The court upheld the judgments of the trial Courts and dismissed the objections raised by the Judgment Debtors, stating that the matter had attained finality. The court also emphasized the enforceability of the decree and the execution process, citing relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a property dispute related to Rockdene Estate, including issues of possession and execution proceedings. The Judgment Debtors challenged the order of the executing Court, seeking quashing of the same. The Court analyzed the facts and previous adjudications, emphasizing the finality of the matter and the enforceability of the decree.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the objections raised by the Judgment Debtors were untenable and an abuse of process of law. It emphasized the finality of previous adjudications and upheld the impugned order, dismissing the petition.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the enforceability of the decree, identification of the property, and the objections raised by the Judgment Debtors to delay the execution process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the finality of previous adjudications, the enforceability of the decree, and the proper execution process as per the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the impugned order and emphasizing the finality of previous adjudications and the enforceability of the decree.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

Challenging the order dated 21.12.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Shimla, in CMP No.1865/2019 and CMP No.1778/2019 in Execution Petition No.16-S/10 of 2014/2011 titled as Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust & another vs. Hardip Kaur Gandhi (Annexure P-9), the Judgment Debtors have come up before this Court, seeking quashing of the same.

2. I have heard Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate for the Judgment Debtors/ petitioners and Mr. Bhupinder Gupta & Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Advocates, for the Decree Holders/respondents. I have also perused the record of Civil Revision No.160/2017, titled as Hardeep Kaur Gandhi and Others vs. Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust and others, after requisitioning the same from the Registry.

3. The facts apposite to adjudicate the present matter are as follows:-

    (a) The property, which is the subject matter of adjudication, is known as Rockdene Estate. One Sardar Ajit Singh originally owned the said property. During his lifetime, he executed a Will bequeathing the entire Estate in favour of his wife Smt. Lajwanti, who after his death inherited the same. Smt. Lajwanti was issue less and continued to possess the property till her last breath. In the Will executed by Sardar Ajit Singh, he had desired that the property be used only for religious purposes. Continuing the same expression, Smt. Lajwanti also executed a Will in her lifetime in favour of one Sh. Rajinder Singh Gujral, whereby she also expressed her desire to use the property for charitable public use.

(b) After the demise of Smt. Lajwanti, Shree Gurudwara Singh Sabha, which is the second respondent herein, converted a portion of the building and its open passage by establishing a Gurudwara over the land in question.

(c) After that, a dispute arose between Nanak Singh Gandhi and his brother Praveen Singh Gandhi with Shree Gurudwara Singh Sabha because these two persons had allegedly unauthorizedly tress-passed in the portion of the Kothi and had allegedly started claiming the same to be their.

(d) The second respondent tried to stop the alleged encroachers which led to filing of a suit by Nanak Singh Gandhi, claiming the right over the property. Shri Nanak Singh Gandhi filed his Suit, seeking a declaratory decree over the suit land by way of adverse possession and also sought injunction against the second respondent i.e. Shree Gurudwara Singh Sabha.

(e) It is pertinent to mention here that after the death of Smt. Lajwanti, Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral, created a Trust in the name of “Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust” vide Trust Deed dated 4.7.1982, which is the 1st respondent herein. It is further revealed that the said land comprised in Khasra Nos.660 to 669, 666, 667, 674/1 and 703/1, measuring 2 Bighas and 17 Bishwas. Shri Nanak Singh Gandhi further claimed that during the lifetime of Smt. Lajwanti, he had served her and as a return she had agreed to handover the possession of the entire property to him for cultivation. He further claimed that he had raised an Orchard over the same. It is further revealed that the said suit later on was withdrawn on 10.3.1981. After that Shri Nanak Singh filed another suit in the capacity of President of Gurudwara Laj Ajit Memorial Sabha. The said suit was registered as Civil Suit No.38-S/1 of 1995/1981. In the said suit, the plaintiff claimed decree for possession of the property known as Rockdene Estate. The plaintiffs made the present respondents as the defendants therein. The plaintiffs claimed in the suit that Shri Nanak Singh was appointed as a caretaker of the property, while Shri Naveen Singh was appointed as a sewadar.

(f) Another suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein i.e. Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust, claiming the possession, injunction and damages. The said suit was registered as Civil Suit No.6-S/1 of 1996/1983.

(g) The Court decreed the civil suit filed by Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust, by granting decree for possession of suit property, the portion of Kothi sh

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