Dismissed

Mohd. Hamid and Another v. Mohd. Moin and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2018CLRE/103/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision against an executing court's order rejecting an objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. The court held that title disputes in rent and eviction decrees are not triable during execution, and the revisionist's remedy lies in a separate title suit.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the executing court is not disturbed. The revision is dismissed. The remedy is to file a suit for declaration of title.

Mohd. Hamid and Another Vs Mohd. Moin and Another — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 103 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Mohd. Hamid And Another Opposite Party :- Mohd. Moin And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Syed Irfan Ali

¶4

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

This revision is directed against the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Executing Court on an objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC filed in an execution case.

¶6

The decree sought to be evicted is a decree passed by the Small Causes Court in proceedings for arrears of rent and eviction. These proceedings had been initiated by the opposite party after having obtained a registered sale deed in his favour executed by the father and father-in-law of the revisionist.

¶7

The case of the revisionists in their objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, is that they had acquired title to the house on the basis of oral Hibanama made by their father and father-in-law on 13.10.2002. This oral Hibanama had been duly accepted by donees who are in possession over the property gifted to them. Despite having ceased to have any title to the house after the oral gift, the vendor of the opposite party, the father and father-in-law of the revisionists had no title or right with him to transfer to the opposite party.

¶8

From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the decree sought to be executed was a decree passed by the Small Causes Court in a suit for arrears of rent and eviction. It is settled law that any dispute of title in proceedings for arrears of rent and eviction is beyond the scope of the proceedings. Now a dispute of title is being raised through the objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC at the execution stage.

¶9

In my considered opinion, a question, which was beyond the scope of the proceedings, the decree whereof is sought to be executed would also be beyond the scope of the execution proceedings because the dispute of title could not have been decided by the SCC Court itself.

¶10

Under the circumstances, therefore, the order impugned is not liable to be interfered with.

¶11

In my opinion, the only remedy available to the revisionist, if any, is by means of a title suit.

¶12

Subject to the above, this revision is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 9.7.2018 Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR MISHRADN: C=IN, O=Personal, ANJANI PostalCode=211001, S=Uttar Pradesh, Phone=f6e3ce979d8983acfc0b3ea04988 5bf64ad5bbb33050e3dfe3e210927d94f4 Mayank KUMAR 13, SERIALNUMBER=004ee64f25f9f36f85dbdc71f5b0ec1e2f0938431e25dbbadc9382 3915b36c6f, CN=ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA Reason: I am the author of this document MISHRA Location: Date: 2018-07-09 15:02:21

Mohd. Hamid and Another v. Mohd. Moin and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Hamid and Another v. Mohd. Moin and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Bhagwan Singh Vs Sri Yogendra Singh

Premchand Agarwal and Another Vs Smt. Kamla Devi and Another

M/S Prime Investment Vs Ramco Industries Ltd. and Others

Subhash Chand Gupta Vs Sanjay Kundalani and 2 Others

Anand Kumar Dubey Vs Ajai Pandey and Others

Garima Seth Vs Abhishek Seth