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

1956 Supreme(All) 54

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Asthana, J.
MURARI LAL - Appellant
Versus
L.DEBI SARAN - Respondents
F. A. F. O. 292 Of 1951
Decided On : 02/24/1956

Advocates Appeared:
S.B.L.GAUR, SHANTI BHUSHAN

Headnote:

EXECUTION OF DECREE - RIGHT TO REMOVE MATERIALS - WHETHER A MATTER RELATING TO EXECUTION, DISCHARGE OR SATISFACTION OF DECREE - SECTION 47, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (1908) - APPLICABILITY - SUB-LESSEES OF DECREE-HOLDER - WHETHER REPRESENTATIVES-IN-INTEREST - SECTION 47(2), CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (1908) - POWER OF COURT TO TREAT SUIT AS PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 47, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (1908).

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff obtained a lease for a fixed term of 5 years and constructed shops on the leased land. After the expiry of the lease, the defendant obtained a theka of the property including the disputed land and filed a suit for ejectment against the plaintiff, which was decreed. The plaintiff filed an appeal and obtained a stay of execution, but the decree-holder was authorized to take possession of the land along with the structures on it, with a direction not to demolish the constructions till the disposal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was allowed one month's time for the removal of the materials. The plaintiff applied to the executing court for assistance to remove the materials, but the application was dismissed, and he was directed to bring a regular suit. The plaintiff filed a suit for the removal of the materials and damages for non-removal.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the right to remove the materials was a matter relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree and that the sub-lessees of the decree-holder were his representatives-in-interest within the meaning of Section 47, Civil Procedure Code (1908). The court further held that the suit was barred by Section 47, Civil Procedure Code (1908), but that the trial court could treat the plaint as an application under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code (1908), subject to the question of limitation and jurisdiction.

Issues: 1. Whether the right to remove the materials was a matter relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree? 2. Whether the sub-lessees of the decree-holder were his representatives-in-interest within the meaning of Section 47, Civil Procedure Code (1908)? 3. Whether the suit was barred by Section 47, Civil Procedure Code (1908)? 4. Whether the trial court could treat the plaint as an application under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code (1908)?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to remove the materials arose out of the decree and could have been enforced in the execution proceedings. 2. The sub-lessees of the decree-holder took the sub-lease subject to the liabilities of the decree-holder on the date of the execution of the sub-lease and were, therefore, his representatives-in-interest. 3. The suit was barred by Section 47, Civil Procedure Code (1908), as the matter in dispute related to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree and the parties to the suit were parties to the decree or their representatives-in-interest. 4. The trial court could treat the plaint as an application under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code (1908), subject to the question of limitation and jurisdiction, under Section 47(2), Civil Procedure Code (1908).

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the lower appellate court was set aside, the suit was dismissed against defendants 1 and 5 to 10, and the case was sent back to the trial court with the direction that the plaint be treated as an application under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code (1908), against them and decided according to law. The plaintiff was allowed to proceed in the suit against defendants 2 to 4.

ASTHANA, J.


( 1 ) THIS is a defendants appeal against the order dated 10-7-1951 of the District Judge of Meerut setting aside the decree of the trial court and remanding the case to it for disposal according to law.

( 2 ) THE circumstances which gave rise to the case out of which this appeal has arisen may be stated as follows : The plaintiff Lala Debi Saran, along with another person, obtained on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- a piece of land on 29-12-1937 and thereafter constructed some shops on it. The lease was for a fixed term of 5 years. Before the expiry of the period of the lease defendants 2-4 granted a theka to defendant 1, Lala murari Lal, on 11-4-1942 in respect of some property including the property which had been given on lease to Debi Saran. After the expiry of the term of the lease in favour of Debi Saran, lala Murari Lal filed a suit, No. 385 of 1943, against Debi Saran for his ejectment from the land in dispute. This suit was decreed on 13-3-1944. Debi Saran was given a right under the decree to remove the materials of the constructions which had been built by him on the disputed land. Debi Saran filed an appeal against this decision before the District Judge and his appeal was dismissed. He then filed a second appeal in this court and also made an application for the stay of the execution of the decree till the disposal of the appeal. This Court did not stay the execution and authorised the decree-holder to take possession of the land together with the structures on it, but in order to safeguard the rights of the plaintiff, directed the decree-holder not to demolish the constructions till the disposal of the appeal. Thereafter the decree-holder entered into possession of the land together with the constructions on it but he did not demolish the constructions in pursuance of the orders of this Court. The appeal was dismissed by this Court and the appellant Debi Saran was allowed one months time for the removal of the materials, from the date of the decree of this Court. It may be mentioned here that the decree of this Court was passed on 5-4-1946. On 6-5-1946 Debi Saran made an application to the executing court asking for its assistance to remove the materials on the ground that he had not been permitted to remove them within the period of one month by the tenants who were in possession of the land along with the constructions on it. It may be mentioned that at the time this application was made the decree-holder had granted a sub-lease of the property in dispute in favour of defendants 5 to 10. This application was dismissed and the plaintiff was directed to bring a regular suit for the enforcement of his claim. In pursuance of this direction he filed a suit against the decree-holder, his tenants and also the zamindars who had originally granted the lease in favour of the plaintiff and subsequently the theka in the name of Murari Lal. In this suit the plaintiff claimed that he should be allowed to remove the materials of the shops which had been constructed by him on the disputed land and that a decree for R Section 1,500/be granted in his favour against defendant 1 or whoever may be found liable for the damages suffered by him due to non-removal of the materials. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by Section 47, Civil P. C. and also Section 11, Civil P. C. The lower appellate court did not agree with the decision of the trial court. It was of the opinion that neither Section 47 nor Section 11, Civil P. C. was applicable to the present case. It, therefore, allowed the appeal and remanded the case as has already been said above.

( 3 ) THE main question for consideration is whether Section 47, Civil P. C. is applicable to the present case. In order to decide this question it is necessary to determine whether the matter in dispute in the present case is one relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and whether it is between the parties to that decree








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