Punjab-Haryana High Court
Birma Devi vs Hanuman And Anr on 22 April, 2024
Author: Archana Puri
Bench: Archana Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055151
2024:PHHC:055151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-1144-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: April 22, 2024
Birma Devi
...Petitioner
Versus
Hanuman and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present: Ms.Mamta Malik Rewar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.R.S.Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
****
ARCHANA PURI, J.
The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the orders dated 12.09.2023
and 04.11.2023, vide which, the objections filed at the behest of the
petitioner were dismissed and review application of the same was further
dismissed.
In pursuance of notice issued, contesting respondent No.1 has
made appearance through counsel.
Learned counsel for the parties heard.
The material facts, as culled from the paperbook, are as
follows:-
That, initially, respondent No.1-plaintiff had filed a suit against Sarjit,
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055151
2024:PHHC:055151
husband of petitioner Birma Devi, thereby, seeking specific performance of
an agreement to sell dated 10.03.2015. The said suit was decreed in favour
of respondent No.1, vide judgment dated 31.01.2017, copy whereof is
Annexure P-2. The said judgment and decree was assailed by Sarjit by way
of an appeal before learned lower Appellate Court and the same was
dismissed, vide judgment dated 08.09.2022, copy whereof is Annexure P-3.
Also, it is evident from the paperbook that Birma Devi-present
petitioner had also filed a suit for issuance of permanent injunction against
Hanuman (respondent No.1) and others, to restrain the defendants from
interfering into her possession of the suit property, as detailed in the
headnote of the plaint. The said suit was decreed vide judgment dated
24.10.2019, copy whereof is Annexure P-1.
Vis-a-vis, judgment of specific performance, after the dismissal
of the appeal filed by Sarjit, husband of Birma Devi, execution petition was
filed by Hanuman, copy whereof is Annexure P-5. During the pendency of
the said execution petition, Birma Devi had filed objections, thereby
asserting about Sarjit, husband of the objector, to be not having any concern
with the suit property and also that the decree for permanent injunction was
passed in her favour on 31.01.2017, in civil suit No.332 of 2017 and
therefore, since she was in possession of the suit property, on the basis of the
agreement, executed in her favour, therefore, Sarjit had no right to enter into
agreement to sell with Hanuman and thus, the suit for specific performance,
ought not to have been decreed and the appeal has also been erroneously
dismissed. In these circumstances, she had claimed her right over the suit
property.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055151
2024:PHHC:055151
However, the said objections were dismissed vide impugned order
dated 12.09.2023. An application for review of the same was filed and the
same was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 04.11.2023.
It is pertinent to mention that from the documents, coming on
record, it is evident that at first instance, Birma Devi had filed a suit for
issuance of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering
into her possession, over the subject property. It is a ground pleaded by
Birma Devi that she had purchased the suit property from Shish Ram and
she is residing therein along with her family members. No doubt, the said
suit was decreed vide judgment dated 24.10.2019, copy whereof is Annexure
P-1. Therein, Hanuman-present decree holder was directed not to dispossess
Birma Devi (plaintiff therein), except in due course of law.
The perusal of the aforesaid decree reveals that the objector
Birma Devi (who was plaintiff in the Civil Court) could not prove her title
over the property in question but however, since the possession of the
plaintiff Birma Devi was admitted by the defendants, therefore, it was held
by the Court that defendants have no right to forcibly interfere in her
possession and dispossess her forcibly, by taking law in their hand.
In the light of the same, it was held that plaintiff is entitled to
injunction against the defendants, on the basis of admitted possession
thereupon, despite that she has failed to prove her ownership thereupon as
Ex.P1 is not a document of ownership. Also, it is pertinent to mention that
Birma Devi was held entitled to decree for permanent injunction and JD was
directed not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff, except in due
course of law, meaning thereby, JD-present decree holder could proceed as
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055151
2024:PHHC:055151
per law.
Simultaneously, it is pertinent to mention that Hanuman, had
filed a suit against Sarjit, husband of Birma Devi for seeking specific
performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.03.2015. The said suit was
filed on 29.07.2015 and decree for specific performance was passed in
favour of Hanuman on 31.01.2017, as evident from the judgment, copy
whereof is Annexure P-2. An appeal was also filed by Sarjit and the same
was dismissed vide judgment dated 08.09.2022, copy whereof is Annexure
P-3. However, no appeal has been preferred by JD-Sarjit, meaning thereby,
the aforesaid judgment had attained finality.
Decree holder-Hanuman was restrained from interfering in the
possession of the objector, in the civil suit filed at the instance of objector
Birma Devi, except in due course of law. Herein, Hanuman-decree holder is
proceeding as per law for the execution of the judgment dated 31.10.2017,
appeal whereof was dismissed vide judgment dated 08.09.2022. In the given
circumstances, since the executable decree is in favour of respondent No.1-
Hanuman, therefore, objector-Birma Devi, as such, cannot take the plea
about herself to be having an edge over the rights of Hunuman.
Rightly, it has been concluded by learned concerned Court that
the executing Court cannot go behind/beyond the decree and it has to
execute the decree, as it is. On the basis of the judgment dated 24.10.2019,
copy whereof is Annexure P-1, it has been concluded about the objector
Birma Devi, not to be having any title in her favour. It is only on the basis
of the possession that her suit was decreed and Hanuman, who was one of
the defendants before learned concerned Cout, was restrained from
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055151
2024:PHHC:055151
interfering into her possession, except in due course of law. Sarjit was also
in possession of the suit property and therefore, decree holder could get the
decree executed against him.
Also, it is pertinent to mention that from the impugned order, it is
evident that petitioner-Birma Devi had filed an application under Order 1
Rule 10 CPC, to be impleaded as party, in the said suit and the same was
dismissed. Meaning thereby, Birma Devi was in knowledge of the pendency
of the litigation, at the instance of Hanuman, against her husband. Despite
dismissal of the application, no further steps have been taken to challenge
the aforesaid order. There was complete silence, at the behest of the
petitioner. This conduct of the petitioner, in itself, is a pointer towards
connivance, being there between Birma Devi and her husband Sarjit, who
had executed an agreement to sell, in favour of Hanuman, on the basis
whereof, decree under execution was passed.
Such being the fact situation, learned Executing Court has
correctly dismissed the objection petition and the consequential review
application also. Thus, the impugned orders merits no further interference,
while exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.
April 22, 2024 (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
