BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Nitin W. Sambre, J.
Dr. Farukh Fakruddin Motiwala —Petitioner
versus
Vimalchand Ghevarchand Jain
and Ors. —Respondent
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Writ Petition (ST) No.95118 of 2020
Decided on 10.3.2021
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 21 Rule 97 and Section 47 – Objection to execution of decree – If obstructor admits that he is a transferee pendente lite it is not necessary to determine a question raised by him that he was unaware of litigation when he purchased property – Executing Court can decide whether resistor or obstructor like Petitioner is a person bound by decree and can refuse to vacate property, based on his rights to be looked into within purview of Order 21 Rule 97 sub-rule (2) – Executing Court not only has determined question of legal right of Petitioner to obstruct decree but has legally arrived at conclusion that Petitioner cannot be held to be entitled to obstruct decree under provisions of law – Petitioner who is a third party being transferee during pendency of civil suit cannot claim better rights than defendants/judgment debtors – Entry in revenue record about pendency of proceedings, absence of title verification cannot give benefit to Petitioner as that of purchaser for value without notice – Petition dismissed. (Paras 19, 24, 25 and 26)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 47, Rules 1, 2 and 5 and Sections 24 and 114 – Review – Reviewing Court has no power to re-appreciate evidence – Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code is applicable to execution proceedings. (Paras 14 and 21)
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Nitin W. Sambre, J.—This Petition is by a third party/stranger to a execution proceeding questioning the order dated 14/09/2020 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Niphad in Review Application No.08 of 2020 in Regular Civil Appeal No.125 of 2017.
2. By the said impugned order, objection to the execution of decree for possession came to be rejected.
3. The facts necessary for deciding the present Petition are as under:-
4. Respondent/decree holder initiated Special Civil Suit No.330 of 1987 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik, alleging that vide Sale Deed Dated 27/6/1978 one Eknath Jaju sold and transferred the suit property to the decree holder.
5. Based on the said title, prayer for declaration of ownership, possession and recovery of storage charges of Rs. 45,270/-was claimed. The said suit came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Niphad, District Nashik on 29/4/1999. The Respondent/decree holder preferred Civil Appeal No.15 of 2001 before the Additional District Judge, Niphad. The said appeal also came to be dismissed on 28/4/2006. However, it is held that decree holders are entitled for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 6% from 29/6/1978 till its realization. The second appeal was dismissed on 20/2/2007 preferred by the Respondent. Aforesaid judgments were subject matter of challenge in Appeal being Civil Appeal No.1784 of 2009 which was arising out of SLP (C) No. 12154 of 2007. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment delivered on 23/3/2009 decreed the entire suit claim. The suit claim reads thus :-
“(a) That it be declared that the Defendant has no right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever in respect of the property, viz. being the plot of land admeasuring one acre four gunthas or thereabouts, that is 5,324 sq. yards (44 gunthas x 121 sq. yds) equivalent to 4451.53 sq. meters, along with 6 (six) corrugated iron-sheet godowns, one house and one well thereon, known as Kandechichawli situated at Gram Panchayat at Nos. 753 to 761 in the village Saykheda, Sub-District Niphad, District Nashik or say part thereof, or to store or keep any goods, articles or things therein or to use, enter upon or remain upon the said property or any part thereof, and that the Defendant is in wrongful use and occupation of the said property.
(b) That the Defendant be ordered to remove himself, his servants, agents and all his goods, articles and things from the said property.
(c) That the Defendant by himself, his servants and agents or otherwise howsoever be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this honourable Court from in any manner storing or keeping any goods, articles or things or using, occupying or entering upon or remaining in use and occupation of the said property or any part thereof.
(d) That the Defendant be ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiffs the sum of Rs 45,270/-being the arrears of storage charges and/or compensation for the period of three years prior to the institution of the suit at the rate of Rs 1,257.50 per month with interest on Rs 45,270/-at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the Defendant remove himself, his servants and agents and his goods, articles and things from the said property.
(e) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the court receiver or some other fit and proper be appointed Receiver of the said property, with all powers under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(f) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendant by himself, his servants and agents or otherwise howsoever, be restrained by an order and Injunction of this Hon’ble Court, from in any manner, storing or keeping any goods, articles or things or using or entering upon or remaining in use or occupation of the said property or any part thereof.
(g) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendant, his servants and agents or otherwise hows
Malthesh Gudda Pooja v. State of Karnataka and others
(1) Objection to execution of decree – If obstructor admits that he is a transferee pendente lite it is not necessary to determine a question raised by him that he was unaware of litigation when he p....
A third party claiming under a judgment debtor cannot file an application under Order XXI Rule 97; they must file under Rule 99 instead.
The executing court is competent to consider all questions raised by the persons offering obstruction against execution of the decree and pass appropriate order, which is to be treated as a decree. T....
The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
Rule 97 read with Rule 101 of Order 21 post amendment wherein the executing court has to determine under Rule 101 Order 21 of the Code that the question raised has legally arisen between the parties ....
A subsequent purchaser cannot assert rights against a prior decree holder, as established by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.