Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
PURAN CHAND, S/O SH. AJIT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 290 of 2014
Decided on : 31-10-2022
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Orders 21 Rule 97-101, Order 23 Rule 3 - Prohibition of Benami Transaction Act, 1988 - Section 3(2) (a) - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14 - Execution of Sale Deed - Suit for Specific Perfaormance - Remaining sale consideration was to be paid by Decree Holder-plaintiff to defendant at time of registration and execution of sale deed - Claiming that Judgment Debtor-Defendant was avoiding execution of sale deed on one pretext or other, Decree Holder filed Civil Suit for specific performance of aforesaid agreement for sale. [Para 32]
Finding of the Court:
It appears from conduct of Judgment Debtor that in suit filed for specific performance of agreement to sell suit property, she tried to save property by entering into compromise with assurance to pay double of earnest money by backing out from Agreement to Sell as permissible under agreement - During Execution Petition also, she took time to pay and deposited Rs.30 lacs in Registry of High Court instead of executing sale deed and she did not attend Office of Sub Registrar to execute sale deed and contested Execution Petition and tried to buy time for making payment and, therefore, it is not apparent on record that she was acting in connivance with Decree Holder - From documents on record and also keeping in view provisions of law, it is apparent on record that Judgment Debtor was absolute owner of suit property and was having every right to sell it - Family arrangements inter se family members as claimed in these objections were never brought on record and there is nothing on record to justify claim of Objector that Judgment Debtor was not an exclusive owner of property but was ostensible owner and it was and is Objector who was and is in possession of property - Being husband, he may be residing with Judgment Debtor but his possession over property cannot be considered in exclusion of possession of Judgment Debtor Nidhi Kuthiala entitling him to file objections against execution of decree passed in favour of Decree Holder - There is no material on record to justify claim of Objector to frame issues and to allow parties to lead evidence in support of objections or in response thereto - Material on record is sufficient to consider and decide objections filed by Objector.
Result: Application dismissed.
ORDER :
1. By way of this application, Ramit Kuthiala, husband of Judgment Debtor Nidhi Kuthiala, has filed objections under Orders 21 Rule 97-101 of Code of Civil Procedure against execution of judgment and decree dated 19.9.2019 passed by this High court in COMS No. 35 of 2018, titled Sandeep Sethi, vs. Nidhi Kuthiala.
2. Facts emerging from the record are that vide sale deed dated 7th August, 2012, Radha Krishan Kuthiala sold suit property to Nidhi Kuthiala wife of Ramit Kuthiala son of Shri Rajiv Kuthiala for consideration of Rs.2,40,00,000/- after receiving consideration through various cheques, detailed in sale deed, and property was transferred in favour of Nidhi Kuthiala to have and hold the suit property as an absolute owner thereof from the date of execution of sale deed along with all rights of easement, paths, passages, liberties and advantages wheresoever appertaining or occupied or enjoyed with the suit property, and legal and physical possession of property was also handed over to Nidhi Kuthiala. It was mentioned in sale deed that there was one occupant/tenant Dr.I.N. Verma on the top floor of suit property and Nidhi Kuthiala was entitled to take rent from or to seek eviction of the said tenant.
3. The aforesaid sale deed was assailed by one Brig.S.C.Kuthiala by filing the Civil Suit No. 137 of 2012 titled as Brig.S.C. Kuthiala vs. Radha Krishan and another wherein Nidhi Kuthiala was defendant No.2. The said suit was withdrawn on 24.10.2017 after a compromise. As per compromise, an amount of Rs.40 lacs was paid by Nidhi Kuthiala to Brig. S.C. Kuthiala through Demand Draft No. 962147 and legal expenses of Rs.5 lacs were paid to learned counsel for plaintiff therein vide Demand Draft No. 962148 drawn on Union Bank of India.
4. Case of Decree Holder is that Nidhi Kuthiala was not having money to be paid to Brig. S.C. Kuthiala for settling the dispute of Civil Suit No. 137 of 2012 and, therefore, Decree Holder was approached for arranging the payment and suit property was agreed to be sold to Decree Holder for consideration of Rs.3 crores only with further agreement that Decree Holder had to pay Rs.1,50,00,000/- immediately, out of which Rs. 40 lacs and 5 lac were directly paid by Decree Holder through Drafts referred supra to Brig.S.C. Kuthiala and learned counsel of Brig.S.C. Kuthiala and thereafter, on very same day on 24.10.2017, when Civil Suit No. 137 of 2012 was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of compromise, an agreement was executed between Decree Holder and Judgment Debtor Nidhi Kuthiala for selling the suit property to Decree Holder for consideration of Rs.3 crore.
5. According to Decree Holder, Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was paid to Nidhi Kuthiala in following manner:-
(2) Rs. 9,40,000/- paid through RTGS vide UTR No.UBINH17250497333 dated 07.09.2017.
(3) Rs. 40,00,000/- paid to Brig. S.C. Kuthiala (Satish Kuthiala) vide D.D. No. 962147 issued by Union Bank of India.
(4) Rs.5,00,000/- paid to Sh.Dushyant Dhadwal, Advocate vice D.D. No. 962148 issued by Union Bank of India.
(5) Rs. 70,50,000/- paid through Cheuqe No. 166318 dated 27.10.2017 drawn on Union Bank of India.
(6) Rs.1,50,000/- paid through bank transfer vide UTR No.UBINN171426060 dated 10.11.2017.
(7) Rs.23,50,000/- paid vide cheque No.166322 dated 02.12.2017 drawn on Union Bank of India.
Total Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only).
6. Remaining sale consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/- was to be paid by Decree Holder-plaintiff to Nidhi Kuthiala defendant at the time of registration and execution of sale deed.
7. Claiming that Judgment Debtor-Defendant was avoiding execution of sale deed on one pretext or the other, on 24.10.2018, Decree Holder filed Civil Suit i.e. COMS No. 35 of 2018 for specific performance of aforesaid agreement for sale dated 24.10.2017.
8. In COMS No. 35 of 2018, a joint application OMP No. 406 of 2018, under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC was filed on 11th September, 2019 for placing on record the
Owner of Property - A woman under provisions of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act is an absolute owner of property devolved upon her in any manner and has a right to enjoy, utilize, dispose of or tr....
(1) Any property purchased by person in name of his spouse or in name of child of such individual by providing consideration for such property out of known sources of that person, shall not be consid....
A decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and can be challenged in any court, as it vitiates all judicial acts.
A decree established in a suit under Order XXI does not automatically nullify an execution sale where necessary parties are not included, reaffirming the principles of execution law.
Objection to execution of decree – Appellant who is a bonafide purchaser of property and not decree holder, cannot take shelter of Rule 97 of CPC to raise objections against execution of decree passe....
The executing court is bound to act within the parameters of the decree established by prior judicial decisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a bonafide purchaser, not being the decree holder and not having been dispossessed of the property, is not entitled to raise objections under ....
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
