Published on July 15, 2022 at 20:15 IST
With respect to a decree for the possession of immovable property, the Delhi High Court has held that if the Decree Holders are aware of the sale in favour of the Objectors, they must implead the Objectors in the suit filed by them.
The Single Justice Amit Bansal while hearing matter observed that, “The manner in which the decree holders took possession of the properties from the Objectors was ex -facie unlawful.”
“The Decree Holders were aware of the sale in favour of the Objectors and also the possession of the Objectors in the aforesaid portions of the suit property. Despite this knowledge, the Decree Holders did not implead the Objectors in the suit filed by them.”
“Even after the decree was passed, no legal notice was served on the Objectors to vacate the property, nor were they made parties in the execution proceedings and straightaway they were dispossessed from the portions of the suit property, of which they had been in a settled occupation for a long period of time.”
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Objector herein had purchased two floors of the suit property from the Decree Holder’s mother.
Thereafter, the Judgment Debtor got the letters of administration in his favour in respect of the will of the mother of the Decree Holders and later a sale deed was executed by the Judgment Debtor in favour of the objector, in respect of the terrace of the suit property.
It is averred that the Objector took reasonable care to ascertain that the Judgement Debtor had power to make the transfer.
However, in 2016, a suit for possession of the suit property was decreed in favour of the decree holder. The grievance of the Objector is that despite being aware of the sale in favour of the Objectors and their possession, the Decree Holder failed to disclose to the Court that three portions of the property had already been sold by the Judgment Debtor.
It was contention of Objector that, “despite knowledge of the possession of the Objector, the Decree Holders neither impleaded the Objector. ”
As a consequence, the Objector along with his parents was dispossessed. Following this, four execution applications were filed by the Objector.
The Objector submitted that he is the bonafide purchaser of the suit property under the agreement to sell and had built further on the second and third floor to the knowledge of the decree holders.
It was argued by the Decree Holder that there is no privity of contract between the Decree Holders and the Objectors and if the Objectors have any grievance at all, the same has to be only against the Judgment Debtor.
In order to reach a conclusion, the Court first analysed the relevant provisions of the CPC, that is, Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102.
The Court held that the Decree Holders ought to have filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC, so as to be put back in possession of the portions of the suit property in occupation of the Objectors.
The court also held that through the letters of administration granted in favour of the Judgment Debtor, the Objectors purchased the portions of the suit property, on the basis of registered sale deeds.
“Merely because the letters of administration granted in favour of the administrator were set aside at a later point of time, would not undo or invalidate intermediate acts performed by the administrator, while the letters of administration granted in his favour duly existed, unless the same are shown to be fraudulent or collusive.”
The Court noted that the fact that the Decree Holders were well aware about the possession of the third parties in the suit property but they deliberately did not implead any of such Objectors in the said proceedings, nor did they challenge the sale deeds executed in favour of such Objectors was wrong.
The Court held that the manner in which the Decree Holders took possession of the properties from the Objectors was ex-facie unlawful.
Therefore, the Court held that the Objectors had made out a case for grant of status quo ante and are entitled to the restoration of possession of the aforesaid portions of the suit.
Accordingly, it was directed that the possession of the aforesaid portions of the suit property, that was taken by the Decree Holders pursuant to warrants of possession issued by the Court be restored to the Objectors, within a period of four weeks from today.