Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 819
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ALKA SARIN, J.
Jagtar Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Mandir Sat Narain Trust & Anr. – Respondents
CR NO.885 of 2024 (O&M)
Decided On : 20-02-2024
Ms. Kiranpreet Kaur, Advocate; For the Petitioner
A party must provide evidence of title to challenge an eviction order; failure to do so results in dismissal of objections.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 47 - Revision petition against dismissal of objections to eviction order - The petitioner contended that the eviction order was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, claiming inheritance from maternal grandparents - The Executing Court found no evidence of title or interest in the property by the petitioner or his grandparents. (Paras 2, 4, 7)
(B) Eviction Proceedings - The court emphasized that in executing eviction decrees, it is not competent to decide on the title of the property, requiring clear evidence of ownership to support objections. (Paras 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the eviction order claiming ownership through maternal grandparents, asserting the eviction was fraudulent. The respondent denied these claims, stating the petitioner had no status to object.
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence of ownership or title by the petitioner or his maternal grandparents, leading to the dismissal of objections.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had any legal standing or evidence to support his claim of ownership over the property in question.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without any documentary evidence of title or interest in the property, the objections to the eviction order were rightly dismissed.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.
The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the Executing Court dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner and also to order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the respondent No. 1 filed an ejectment application (Annexure P-1) seeking eviction of the respondent No.2 from the demised premises. Vide order dated 06.07.2013 (Annexure P-2) the eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller. In execution proceedings the petitioner filed objections (Annexure P-3) contending that the respondent No. 1 (decree-holder) was trying to grab the property in question without any right, title and concern and that there was no document of title in its favour. It was averred that when the petitioner requested respondent No. 1 (decree-holder) to admit his claim they refused to accept the same which constrained him to file a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent No. 1 (decree-holder) and respondent No.2 (judgment-debtor). As per the petitioner the alleged tenancy is bogus and was created to grab the property in question on the basis of a forged rent note. According to the petitioner his maternal grandparents were owners in possession of the property in question and after the death of his maternal grandfather, his maternal grandmother was residing in the property in question and that the petitioner had been residing with his maternal grandmother. It was claimed that after the death of his maternal grandmother the petitioner came into possession of the property in question and raised construction of a two-storeyed shop which was given on rent to one Harjit Singh son of Massa Singh as per rent note dated 15.07.2008. The said tenant was stated as being in possession of the property in question. It is claimed that there was litigation between the petitioner and his tenant Harjit Singh and a suit for permanent injunction was disposed off vide compromise order dated 30.08.2013. It was stated that the eviction order was not executable as the same was obtained by playing misrepresentation and fraud and that the execution be dismissed.
3. The respondent No. 1 (decree-holder) filed a reply (Annexure P-4) denying that the eviction order was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation upon the court or that the same was liable to be set aside. It was denied that the maternal grandparents of the petitioner were residing in the property in question and after their death the petitioner came in possession over the same. In connection with the litigation put forth by the petitioner it was submitted that the same was procured by the petitioner in connivance with the alleged tenant Harjit Singh and that the same was collusive. As per respondent No. 1 (decree-holder) the petitioner has no status and is trying to grab the property of the Mandir Trust.
4. Vide order dated 09.02.2023 the Executing Court dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner. It was found that the petitioner had failed to show that his maternal grandparents had any interest in the property in question. The appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 09.02.2023 was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 19.12.2023. Hence, the present revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Courts below have erred in dismissing his objections. According to counsel the petitioner has inherited the property in question from his maternal grandparents and respondent No. 1 (decree-holder) in connivance with respondent No.2 (judgment-debtor) was trying to grab and usurp the property in question. As per counsel, the eviction order against respondent No.2 (judgment-debtor) is vitiated by fraud.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. The Executing Court found that "in the executing proceedings relating to eviction decree, this court is not comp
