Back
ANIL KSHETARPAL
Mohan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Gurtek Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
CM-9332-CII-2024
1. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased late Sh. Gurtek Singh [respondent no.1] mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application, is allowed, subject to all the just exceptions.
2. The amended memo of parties is taken on record.
3. CM stands disposed of.
MAIN
4. In this revision petition, the petitioner assails the correctness of the Executing Court’s order dated 17.03.2023, while dismissing his objection petition.
5. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
6. Sh. Shiv Kumar and Naranjan Dass were joint owners of the property on the basis of sale deed executed in their favour on 27.01.1995, which was registered on 02.02.1995. They executed the agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner and Sh. Mohan Singh, on 26.12.2003. However, Sh. Shiv Kumar and Sh. Naranjan Dass did not honour the agreement. Hence, the petitioner filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell on 08.12.2006, which was decreed on 20.09.2014. The first appeal filed by
The Executing Court must consider objections raised by parties and the principle of lis pendens in property disputes to ensure fair adjudication.
The court affirmed that unproven claims under an agreement to sell do not override execution proceedings, especially when the claim is time-barred.
The subsequent sale of the property did not affect the rights of the decree-holder, and the executing court must consider the rights of subsequent purchasers under Section 19(b) of the 1963 Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relief of possession can be granted without being specifically claimed in a suit for specific performance, as per Section 22(2) of the Spe....
A second execution petition filed after the limitation period is barred, and withdrawal of an earlier execution does not extend the limitation period.
The exemption for a residential house from attachment does not apply if the property is specifically charged with the debt sought to be recovered.
The main legal point established is that property conveyed to a Defendant's wife can be attached to satisfy a decree if the conveyance was done to evade execution, and legal heirs are liable to satis....
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
