AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vivek Singh Thakur, J
Civil Suit No.131 of 1990, preferred for Specific Performance of Contract, was decreed by a Single Bench of this Court in favour of Plaintiff – Degree Holder vide judgment and decree dated 27.3.2000, with possession of land as described in the plaint, in terms of Agreement Ex. PW-1/1, dated 3.8.1990, with direction to the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration amount of `4,89,000/- in the Court, within a period of two months from the date of judgment and decree, and Bhandari Lal, predecessor of present Judgment Debtors was directed to execute the sale deed within four weeks thereafter.
The aforesaid judgment and decree was assailed by Bhandari Lal by filing OSA No.12 of 2000, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.4.2017.
In compliance of judgment and decree, passed in the Civil Suit, Plaintiff – Decree Holder had deposited the balance amount of sale consideration in the Registry of this Court on 11.4.2000 through Banker’s Pay Order, drawn on Punjab National Bank, The Mall, Shimla, with information to the defendant about such deposit. However, original defendant – Judgment Debtor failed to execute and register the Sale Deed during his life-time.
On the basis of knowledge about execution of registered Will, dated 9.10.2009, by original Judgment Debtor in favour of Judgment Debtors No.1 to 4, who were his grand-daughters, present Execution Petition was filed against them alongwith draft of Sale Deed to be executed, as required under Order 21 Rule 34(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’).
During pendency of Execution Petition, Khayala Devi wife of Bhandari Lal, who was grandmother of Judgment Debtors No.1 to 4, filed an application for her impleadment claiming her interest and right in the suit property and she was impleaded as Judgment Debtor No.5 in present Execution Petition.
Judgment Debtors No.1 to 4 had also filed objections under Section 47 of CPC. However, on 11.3.2022, they, through their counsel, had informed that they were not interested to press the objections but were interested and entitled for sale consideration deposited by the Decree Holder in the Court and prayer was made to release the amount in their favour. By that time Khayala Devi had also expired and her son Ranvir Chand alias Ranvir Singh, who is father of Judgment Debtors No.1 to 4, was impleaded as Judgment Debtor No.5(a) being her legal representative.
On 11.3.2022, it was claimed on behalf of Ranvir Chand that it would be he who will be entitled for sale consideration. Therefore, Execution Petition was listed for consideration of rival contentions of the parties.
After her impleadment, Khayala Devi (Judgment Debtor No.5) had preferred the present application/Objections under Section 47 of CPC, claiming that Execution Petition is not maintainable on various grounds, including that Agreement for Specific Performance was not permissible under law, for violation of Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 and further that she had become landless and as per law no person is permitted to sell his entire land and valuation certificate issued by the competent authority has not been annexed nor has been mentioned in the draft Sale Deed for fixing stamp duty in accordance with rules and further that subject matter of decree is not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court and, thus, Execution Petition is not maintainable.
After death of Khayala Devi, Judgment Debtor No.5(a) Ranvir Chand is pursuing this application on the same grounds.
It has been contended on behalf of Judgment Debtor No.5(a) that Judgment Debtors No.1 to 4 were arrayed as such on the basis of alleged Will executed by Bhandari Lal in their favour, whereas other legal heirs of Bhandari Lal have not been arrayed as Judgment Debtors, without taking into consideration the fact that alienation of property by Bhandari Lal was assailed in Civil Suit No.99 of 2005. The said suit was dismissed by Civil Judge and appeal preferred against such dismissal was also dismissed by District Judge Kullu, however, appeal arising thereto bearing RSA No.469 of 2009, preferred by Khayala Devi, is pending adjudication in this High Court, wherein interim order has been passed by the Court directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to nature, possession and title of the suit premises. It has been contended that in view of the interim order passed in the said appeal, present Execution Petition is not maintainable as status of the suit property, including title, cannot be altered.
So far as objection regarding merit of the case in the suit filed for specific performance of contract is concerned, this Court, being Executing Court, cannot go beyond the decree sought to be executed, which has been passed by adjudicating and assessing the merits of the case and contention raised in the suit and have attained finality. Suit was decided by learned Single Judge of this Court, exercising the then pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the Execution Petition, for implementation of the judgment and decree passed by this Court, is maintainable in this Court, irrespective of the pecuniary value of the subject matter and pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court as on date.
In RSA No.469 of 2009, rival claim amongst the legal representatives/legal heirs or relatives of original Judgment Debtor Bhandari Lal is pending adjudication interse them, whereas in the present case, in which verdict of the Court had attained finality, a decree has been passed in favour of Decree Holder. Therefore, pendency of RSA No.469 of 2009 is also not a bar for maintaining the present Execution Petition and on account of dispute between the legal representatives/legal heirs/relatives of the original Judgment Debtor with respect to inheritance of the property of the original Judgment Debtor, the amount deposited in the present matter can be withheld till decision of such dispute so as to disburse the same in favour of those legal heirs/legal representatives/relatives of the original Judgment Debtor, who would be held entitled to inherit the suit property in the present case, but for pendency of the said appeal, execution of sale deed, in terms of judgment and decree passed in favour of Decree Holder, on 27.3.2000, i.e. about 23 years ago, cannot be withheld. However, for existence of an interim order passed in RSA No.469 of 2009, wherein property, subject matter of present matter, is also part of the suit land, it would not be appropriate and permissible to direct execution of sale deed in compliance of judgment and decree passed in present matter.
For aforesaid observations, I do not find any merit in the present application/objections. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.
Present application/objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.