ESA-13-2014

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Execution Second Appeal No.13 of 2014 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 28, 2019.

Rakesh Kumar Chopra

..........APPELLANT(s).

VERSUS

Hawa Singh and others

........RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate

for the appellant (s).

Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate

for the respondents No.1 to 7 and 10.

None for respondent No.14.

*******

SURINDER GUPTA, J.

Har Lal (since deceased, now represented by his legal

representatives) was a tenant in the shop in dispute. The facts of his

litigation with the landlord as enumerated in para 9 of the Order passed by

Additional District Judge, Hisar are reproduced as follows:-

“In the present case, the decree holder was a tenant in the

suit property and he instituted one suit against his

landlord namely Roop Ram seeking a decree for

permanent injunction restraining the landlord from

dispossessing him forcibly and order of injunction was

issued in his favour. The landlord/owner sold the

property in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 namely Kiru

Ram, Wazir Singh and Sher Singh during pendency of

the suit. Decree holder was dispossessed on 25.06.95.

The original owner/landlord and subsequent purchasers

absented and were proceeded exparte in the suit. Vide

SACHIN MEHTA

2019.03.06 10:14

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

ESA-13-2014

-2-

judgement and decree dated 12.03.2005, it was held that

plaintiff/decree holder had been illegally dispossessed

and a decree for possession of the suit property was

passed in his favour and the decree is sought to be

executed in which present objections under Order 21

Rule 97 C.P.C. were filed by objector/respondent

alleging that he had purchased the suit property from

original defendants No.2 to 4 vide sale deed dated

31.7.97. It was in the knowledge of the plaintiff/decree

holder that he has purchased the suit property, but he did

not care to implead him as a defendant and decree has

been passed at his back. JDs No.2 to 4 had delivered the

possession of the suit property to him in pursuance of the

sale deed dated 31.7.97 and he is a bona fide purchaser

for valuable consideration and he cannot be dispossessed

in execution of the decree. In fact, the JDs No.1 to 4 are

in connivance with each other as well as Decree holder

and have fraudulently procured the judgement and decree

dated 12.3.2005 which is based on wrong facts.”

The objections filed by the appellant were dismissed by the

executing Court with the observation that the appellant is a transferee

pendente lite. He has his shop of scooter and motorcycle workshop in front

of the shop in question and was having knowledge about the litigation

between the parties. His plea that he is a bona fide purchaser, was held as

not sustainable. The appeal filed by the objector was also dismissed by

Additional District Judge, Hisar with the observations in para 10 of the

order as follows:-

“However, in my considered opinion, the

appellant/objector, has stepped into the shoes of the

original landlord or his vendors who had dispossessed the

decree holder from the suit property after institution of

SACHIN MEHTA

2019.03.06 10:14

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

ESA-13-2014

-3-

the suit despite an order of injunction in his favour. The

sale deed in his favour is hit by principle of lis-pendens

and cannot claim himself to be a bona fide purchaser for

consideration without notice, as the property was

purchased by him during the pendency of the suit and

after forcible dispossession of the plaintiff by previous

owner. It is well settled that a person who purchases the

property during the pendency of suit does not acquire any

right better than those which his transferor had. The

decree holder/plai