A property can be identified by municipal number despite discrepancies in boundary descriptions, affirming the finality of prior judicial decisions regarding ownership claims.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Kumar, J.

Heard Shri Nishank Rastogi, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Mohd. Tariq, learned counsel for respondent no. 6.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.11.2023 passed by learned Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge, Court No. 21, Lucknow in P.A. Ex./29/2021 (Old No.4/2011) (Muzzamil Husain v. Abdul Azeez) by means of which a writ of possession has been issued according to the municipal number.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the respondents had filed P.A. Case No. 10 of 2010 for vacation against the petitioner. The said case was contested by the petitioner denying the tenancy between the respondents and the petitioner on the ground that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had purchased the house in question, therefore, they had become the owner of the house. However, the sale deed executed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was disbelieved on account of difference in the boundaries given in the plaint and the sale deed produced by the petitioner and the said P.A. Case No. 10 of 2010 was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 30.05.2011. The rent appeal against the same filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Thereafter writ petition filed before this Court was also dismissed only on this ground.

4. He further submits that during pendency of the execution case, the petitioner had preferred an application showing the fraud committed by the petitioner in obtaining the aforesaid decree, which was registered as Misc. Civil Case No. 537 of 2023 but dismissed by means of the order dated 8.9.2023, which has been assailed by the petitioner in revision. He further submits that twice a writ of possession issued by the executing court was returned on the ground of boundaries of the house in question as the same were not traceable.

5. He further submits that thereafter the respondents moved an application for issuing a writ of possession alleging that if the boundaries are not traceable then the judgment and order may be executed as per the house number. The petitioner had filed an objection against the same on the ground that since the property is not identifiable in terms of the directions issued by this Court, therefore, it may be held that the judgment passed in P.A. case is un-executable because a direction was issued by means of judgment and order dated 30.05.2011 for possession of the house no. 89/180 (89/147), Suturkhana, Makboolganj, P.S. Kaiserbagh, Lucknow and in the tenancy of the petitioner, the boundaries of which have been given in the application. Therefore, if the boundaries are not traceable the judgment and order cannot be executed. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits that the issue of boundaries was raised by the petitioner in the P.A. Case itself, which was rejected and he lost up-to this Court. This Court in petition Rent Control No. 106 of 2012 (Abdul Azeez and other v. Additional District Judge/T.E.C.P.-5, Lucknow and another) after considering the contentions of the petitioner recorded a finding that the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority have rightly reached to the conclusion that the petitioners have failed to prove that the sale deed relates to the disputed tenanted portion and names of the Police Station and Mohalla are also different, therefore, now at this stage, the petit