Back
ANIL KSHETARPAL
Ramesh Chander – Appellant
Versus
Sarabjit Singh (Deceased) through Lrs – Respondent
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. This execution second appeal filed by the third party objector to assail the correctness of the concurrent orders passed by the Executing Court on 16.12.2021, which in appeal has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court. In substance, the appellant along with his brother filed objection petition claiming that their father purchased the suit property under the sale deed and they have inherited the property from their father. It was also claimed that there is a decree in their favour dated 01.08.2018 against the judgment debtor.
2. It was contested by the decree holder while highlighting that the judgment and decree passed on 01.08.2018 is collusive as the objectors filed the suit on 04.07.2018 and the decree on the basis of compromise was passed on 01.08.2018. It has also been submitted that the aforesaid civil suit was filed by the objectors after the decree for possession was passed by the trial Court against the judgment debtor, which in appeal was affirmed by the First Appellate Court.
3. The Executing Court on perusal of the revenue record found that 25 marlas of land is recorded to be owned by two persons namely Sh. Lalit Kapoor and Sh. Gurdit Singh. Late
In the absence of evidence to support a claim, the court is not required to frame issues and must form an opinion as to whether any triable issue is involved in the case.
The Executing Court's authority is limited to issues directly related to the execution of a decree, and it cannot adjudicate unrelated matters raised by third-party objectors.
A purchaser not impleaded in a suit cannot be bound by an ex-parte decree against previous owners, and their rights are superior if acquired before the suit.
Prior decrees and established legal agreements govern claims to joint family property; subsequent claims must be substantiated independently to be valid.
The executing court must determine questions arising between parties to the decree without modifying it, and procedural irregularities should not defeat substantive rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of the decree under section 47 and section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and the consequences of permissive possession ....
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
