Veena Devi vs Ranjit Kaur
2006 Latest Caselaw 796 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. This Revision Petition is filed by the objector, Smt. Veena Devi against the order of Civil Judge dated 14.10.2004 rejecting her objections to execution of a decree passed in favor of Smt. Ranjit Kaur, the respondent.

2. The respondent had filed the suit for possession in respect of property located in Khasra No.23/24/25C situated at village Asalat Pur Khadam, Delhi measuring 600 sq.yds. The respondent had also filed the site plan along with the plaint. The said suit was filed against Mr. Ramlal and Mr. Kala, son of Ramlal. The suit was contested by the said defendants but was ultimately decreed on 26.11.1999. It has been held that the respondent was/is the owner of the said property and the said defendants were in illegal and unauthorised occupation of the suit property and they were directed to hand over vacant peaceful possession of the property to the respondent.

3. The objector claims that she was/is in occupation of part of the property having purchased the property in her occupation, from Mr. Amarnath in the year 1989. The objector had also filed documents executed by Mr.Ram Lal, the Judgment Debtor in favor of Mr.Amarnath. Thus, it is obvious that the objector traces her title through the Judgment Debtor.

4. The objector herein has raised three contentions. Firstly, it was submitted that the objector was/is a bona fide purchaser for consideration and as she was not a party to the suit filed by the respondent, she was not bound by the decree and cannot be dispossessed in execution of a decree to which she was not a party. It was secondly submitted that the decree itself was/is a nullity in view of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Lastly, it was submitted that the property in occupation of the petitioner was/is different from the one for which decree of possession has been passed in favor of the respondent.

5. The first contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Order XXI, Rule 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. Doctrine of lis pendens has been recognised in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It is a doctrine based upon law, equity and good conscience. Law does not allow a litigant to part with the property, which is the subject matter of dispute to third parties so as to cause prejudice to the plaintiff or the opposite side. A party to a suit cannot circumvent a decree by parting with possession and transfer of title or rights to third parties. The doctrine of lis pendens and the Rule under Section 52 of the Act is not based upon notice but on expediency. A transferee, therefore, is only a representative in interest of the judgment debtor, though the said transfer is not void but only voidable. Order XXI, Rule 102 of the Code also specifically states that nothing contained in Rule 98 and 100 shall apply and give right to a person to whom the judgment debtor had transferred the property after institution of the suit in which the decree was passed, to obstruct execution of a decree for possession of immovable property. The first contention, therefore, of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is rejected.

6. The question whether the land is agricultural land and whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction in view of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954 was one of the contentions raised in the written statement in the suit for possession. The said objection was considered and rejected in the judgment when the decree was passed. The execution court cannot go beyond the decree now and question whether the Suit was maintainable in view Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The said contention is, therefore, liable to be rejected. It may be stated here that it is admitted case of the parties that property has been constructed upon and was/is being used for residential purposes.

7. The third and the last contention raised by the petitioner was with regard to the identity of the land. This contention too does not have any merit. The identity of the land is required to be established for the purpose of identification. The court executing the decree should be certain about the land/property in respect of which decree of possession has been passed. Land of a third person or land not covered by litigation cannot be not made subject matter of execution. A perusal of the plaint shows that a site plan was enclosed with the plaint. As the property had been constructed upon, in addition to the khasra numbers, a specific number, namely 23/24/25C, Vill.Aslatpur, Khurdam, Delhi had been mentioned in the plaint. The said number has also been mentioned in the judgment. It, therefore, cannot be said that the property for which the decree has been passed is not capable of being identified for the purpose of execution of the decree.

8. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No Costs.