Mahendra Singh Yadav S/O Shri Jai ... vs Madhu Devi W/O Shri Ghanshayam Das
2022 Latest Caselaw 4819 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Execution First Appeal No. 2/2022

Mahendra Singh Yadav S/o Shri Jai Singh Yadav
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
Madhu Devi W/o Shri Ghanshayam Das & Ors.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)            :    Mr. Dinesh Yadav
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Mohit Gupta



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                     Order

14/07/2022

Appellant-objector has preferred this civil execution first

appeal, feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of his objections, led

under Order 21 rule 97 CPC against the execution of judgment

and decree dated 11.03.2004, passed in Civil Suit No.125/2003 by

the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Alwar.

It appears from record that respondent No.1-plaintiff namely,

Smt. Madhu Devi, on the basis of agreement to sale dated

11.09.1996, executed in her favour by the owner of the subject

plot namely, Shri. Ramji Lal, filed a civil suit for specific

performance bearing Civil Suit No.125/2003 titled as Madhu Devi

Vs. Ramji Lal. This civil suit was decreed vide judgment dated

11.03.2004. In execution of the decree, the sale deed dated

12.05.2022 has been executed in favour of respondent No.1-

plaintiff Madhu Devi. Respondent No.1-plaintiff Madhu Devi

contends that plot in question is already in her actual and physical

possession.

(2 of 3) [EXFA-2/2022]

Appellant-objector along with one Tulsi Ram filed objections

under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in execution proceedings of the

decree dated 11.03.2004 stating therein that the original owner

Ramji Lal had executed an agreement dated 22.01.1991 for the

subject plot in favour of Tulsi Ram and thereafter Tulsi Ram has

transferred the subject plot. Appellants-objectors claimed their

possession over the subject plot.

Learned executing court hold the Summary Trial on

objections provided under the Provision of Order 21 Rule 100 CPC

and allowed both parties to produce evidence. After holding the

trial, vide order impugned dated 21.09.2021, the objections have

been dismissed.

The agreement alleged to be made in favour of Tulsi Ram

dated 22.01.1991 has been found to be forged and the

subsequent agreement dated 01.08.2004 has been found hit by

the principle of lis pendense. Objectors have not produced any

substantive evidence to show their physical possession over the

subject plot, particularly in furtherance to the first agreement

dated 22.01.1991. It may be noticed that in the present appeal,

the objector Tulsi Ram has not joined with the appellant.

Prima facie, it appears that appellant-objector Mahendra

Singh, who is claiming his right and possession over the subject

plot on the basis of agreement dated 01.08.2004, is firstly

subsequent to the decree in question dated 11.03.2004 and

secondly, appellant steps in the shoe of the Tulsi Ram, who has

not come before this Court in appeal.

However, since the present appeal is in nature of execution

first appeal let notices be issued.

(3 of 3) [EXFA-2/2022]

Since, respondent No.1-plaintiff has appeared as caveator,

hence notices be issued only to respondents No.2/1 to 2/4.

Record of the objection petition be summoned.

In aforesaid facts and circumstances, no prima facie case is

made out to grant any interim relief in favour of appellant at this

stage.

List this case again after receiving the record of the court

below.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SACHIN /95

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)