IMPORTANT POINT
A person in possession of property has the right to object to the execution of a decree under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, and the trial court must consider such objections before proceeding with execution.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenge order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge Pratapgarh in Civil Revision No. 60 of 2015 (Abdul Hasan and others versus Shrimati Shobha Rani) as well as the order dated 31/07/2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Pratapgarh in Execution Suit No. 23 of 1980 (Bismilla Begam versus the Ramraj Kunwari)

3. The brief facts of the case are that Raja Jagat Ranvir Bahadur Singh, a Taluqdar of Kaithola Estate, was the owner of the disputed property and had adopted Raja Jagat Ranvir Mahesh Prasad Singh by means of an adoption deed. He further executed will on 27/12/1945 in favour of Raja Jagat Ranvir Mahesh Prasad Singh and gave all his property to him. He executed a deed dated 29-05-1935 in favour of his wife Rani Dharam Raj Kuer respondent No. 9 in respect of this house and some other property. It has been submitted that under this deed Rani Dharam Raj Kuer was granted a heritable but non-transferable lease so far as the house in dispute is concerned and as such under the terms of this grant she could only remain in possession of the house but could not make any temporary or permanent transfer thereof. The Raja died on 09-09-1949. Hence both as an adopted son and as a legatee he was owner of the interest reserved by the Raja in the said house under the deed dated 29-05-1935. Smt. Bimlawati Kumari Devi was the daughter of Raja and had claimed the property through Rani Dharam Raj Kuer by inheritance. The said property was sold by Rani Dharam Raj Kuer by a registered sale deed in favour of Abdul Rahman 05/01/1960.

4. Raja Jagat Ranvir Mahesh Prasad came to know about the sale deed filed a suit before the civil judge Pratapgarh for cancellation of Sale deed dated 05/01/1960 executed in favour of Abdul Rehman and also for possession after their ejectment. The suit was registered as Regular Suit No. 17 of 1960 where it was stated that Rani Dharam Raj Kuer has been granted only lifetime interest and she has not been given right of transfer by sale of the property in question as such the sale deed is without any authority of law.

5. The suit filed by Raja Jagat Ranvir Mahesh Prasad was decreed by the Munsif Magistrate and an appeal was filed before the District Judge by Abdul Rahman which was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif Magistrate was set aside. A second appeal was filed against the judgment of the District Judge before this court being Second Appeal No. 372 of 1963 which was allowed and the order passed by the District Judge was set aside affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff Magistrate, Pratapgarh on 29/08/1972.

6. The High Court while allowing the Second Appeal recorded the following fin dings after using the documents placed before them:

a. With regard to the validity of the adoption deed it was held-Besides being an adopted son of the Raja, the plaintiff is also Ms legatee. From a perusal of this will it is dear that whatever interest had been retained by the Raja under the document dated 29-5-1935 in respect of the house in suit was covered by this will and it had not been excluded therefrom. In fact the Raja tried even to whittle down the extent of the grant made under that document which he could not do. That is not an issue before us. The point worth noticing is that whatever interest was retained by the Raja in the house in suit under the document dated 29-5-1935 was not excluded from the purview of the will in favour of the plaintiff. So the plaintiff on both these grounds is entitled to step into the shoes of the Raja and safeguard his interest, if any, in the house in suit reserved under the deed dated 29-5-1935.

b. The nature of gift deed made in favour Rani Dharam Raj Kuer it was also really co