Dismissed

Naushad Khan v. Savitri Devi

Jharkhand HC2 Jun 2023C.M.P./664/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to set aside an order rejecting an execution application. The court held that the petitioner failed to raise property title objections during the original suit or appeal, and filing an application during execution was merely a stall tactic.

What the court decided

AI extract

Naushad Khan Vs Savitri Devi — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

C.M.P. No. 664 of 2023

¶3

Naushad Khan … Petitioner

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Savitri Devi

¶6

Lallu Khan. … Opp. Parties.

¶7

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶8

For the Petitioner : M/s Amar Kr. Sinha, and Ajit Kumar, Advocates For the Respondents :

¶9

02/02.06.2023: The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to set aside the order dated 22.5.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-VI, Ramgarh in Misc. Civil Application No. 09 of 2023, arising out of Execution Case No. 81 of 2017, whereby the application filed under Order-XXI Rules 99 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

¶10

I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶11

One Savitri Devi filed a Title Suit No. 54 of 1996 against Lallu Khan. After the suit was decreed, the said Lallu Khan preferred an appeal, which was dismissed. To execute the decree, Savitri Devi preferred an execution case being Execution Case No. 81/2017. In the said execution case, this petitionerNaushad Khan, who happens to be brother of Lallu Khan (Judgment debtor) preferred an application under Order XXI Rules 99 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that the land in question which was decreed in favour of Savitri Devi and others was settled in favour of his grand-father namely Jahir Khan by virtue of Hukumnama . After the death of Jahir Khan, his only son Md. Khalil Khan inherited the property and started residing there. Khalil Khan partitioned the property along with other lands amongst his three sons, namely Naushad Khan (the petitioner), Sakil Khan and Lallu Khan (Judgment debtor). As per him, the suit property was allotted to the petitioner. He submits that the title suit, which was filed by Savitri Devi and others against Lallu Khan is a collusive suit and he was not aware of the suit. He was even not made a party in the suit though he was in possession of the property. Now, the decree is to be executed, the petitioner will thus be dispossessed for which, the application under Order XXI, Rules 99 and 101 C.P.C was filed.

¶12

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court should have adjudicated the entire issue by taking evidence but summarily dismissed the application, which is against the provision of law. As per him, since he was in possession of the land in question, by virtue of execution, he will be dispossessed; thus, the application should have been entertained.

¶14

After hearing the petitioner and after going through the record, I find that for execution of the decree, Execution Case No. 81/2017 was filed by Savitri Devi against the judgment debtor Lallu Khan. Lallu Khan is the brother of this petitioner. For the first time, in the execution case, this petitioner came up with plea to hear him on the ground that he would be dispossessed if the decree is executed as he has right, title and possession over the property in question. While going through the impugned order, I find that on the earlier occasion, a petition under Order XXI Rules 98 and 101 C.P.C was filed by Lallu Khan, which was dismissed. Now this petitioner has filed the present petition under Order XXI, Rules 99 and 101 C.P.C. . This is nothing, but an approach to stall the execution process and to deprive the decree holder from the fruit of the decree.

¶15

Admittedly, this petitioner did not take any steps to ventilate his grievance either in the suit or in the appeal, though he could have done so, but rather waited for till execution of the decree when the Nazir went to execute the decree by giving delivery of possession.

¶16

Further, I find that the Trial Court has taken note of the judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sriram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd. V. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust , reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 794 and relying upon paragraph 18 of the said judgment, has held that the application is not maintainable. The approach of the petitioner is to stall the execution of the decree and to deprive the decree holder from the fruits of the decree with the collusion of the judgment debtor.

¶17

Thus, I find no merit in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed .

¶18

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶19

Anu/Cp-02

Naushad Khan v. Savitri Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Naushad Khan v. Savitri Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Sardar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahto Lohra Alias Kamlesh Lohra Alias Kamlesh Tirkey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Durga Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiv Narayan Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Akhtar Shekh Alias Akhtar Shekh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Revenue Registration and Land Reforms Deptt

Poli Devi Vs Panchayat Samiti Bundu