Surjit Singh vs Rishi Kumar and Another

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order, dated 4.11.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal rejecting the application for framing issues, filed by the petitioner, in execution petition filed by respondent No. 1 for execution of the decree dated 18.2.2006 passed in his favour.

As per the averments made in the petition, respondent No. 1 (decree holder), filed a suit for specific performance, on 14.6.2003, against respondent No. 2 (judgment-debtor) which was decreed ex-parte, in favour of respondent No. 1 on 18.2.2006. The respondent No. 1 filed execution and in those proceedings, petitioner filed objections, vide Annexure P-2, stating therein that Shamsher Alam, husband of respondent No. 2, had already entered into an agreement to sell the house, in dispute, with the petitioner, vide agreement to sell dated 20.02.2002 and had received a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- as earnest money and put the objector/petitioner in possession of the said house and since then the objector is in possession of the house in question. It has been further stated by him that respondent No. 2 was not the owner of the house. The petitioner has also put his claim on the basis of Annexure P-6, which is a photocopy of House Tax Assessment Register, for the year ending 1997-1998, in which according to the petitioner, his name allegedly finds mention in the column of ownership of the property in dispute. During the pendency of this execution petition, the petitioner filed an application requesting therein, that the executing court may frame the issues to decide the controversy in dispute, effectively, which has been dismissed illegally.

On the basis of the above stated facts the present revision petition has been directed, against the order, rejecting his application for framing of the issues.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is a clear case where his objection petition cannot be dismissed summarily and the trial Court should have framed the issues to decide the points raised by the petitioner, which can only be proved by way of evidence.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, I find no merit in this petition. The petitioner has raised his claim, on the basis of an agreement to sell, executed in his favour, by the husband of the petitioner on 20.02.2002. Whereas, in reply to the objection petition, it has been mentioned by the decree holder/respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 2 is the owner of the house in dispute, which was purchased from Sushil Kumar, son of Baldev Singh, vide registered sale-deed dated 30.1.2002, for a consideration of Rs. 1,30,000/- and the present objector/petitioner is a signatory to the aforesaid sale-deed and, therefore, it is not possible that a person who was a witness to the aforesaid sale-deed will be entering into an agreement to sell with the husband of the petitioner. Moreover, there is nothing, on the record, to controvert the aforesaid fact of the decree holder that respondent No. 2 is the owner of the property, in dispute and in view of this fact the objection of the petitioner that he has purchased the property from the husband of respondent No. 2 is of no consequence. Admittedly, the petitioner is claiming his right only, on the basis of an agreement to sell. It is well settled that the immovable property cannot be held to be transferred on the basis of the agreement to sell. The entry in the House Tax Assessment Register, as relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, is of no consequence. It is well settled that entries in the House Tax Assessment Register are not a proof of ownership.

For the reasons recorded above, no merit in the petition.

Dismissed.