Partly allowed

Pradeep Kumar Baresia v. Radha Baresia

Telangana HC1 Sept 2014CRP/1445/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision, the single judge dismissed the challange to the Executing Court order rejecting an application to declare a decree unenforceable based on an alleged unregistered and unsigned Memorandum of Understanding. The court held that satisfaction of a decree must be recorded by the Court and relinquishment of decreed rights requires a registered document.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petition disposed of.

Pradeep Kumar Baresia Vs Radha Baresia — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

C.R.P. No.1445 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The respondent filed O.S.No.337 of 2002 in the Court of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The parties are closely related, and are from the same family. The claim of the respondent was based upon a Will. The trial Court decreed the suit on 27-06-2006. Thereafter, the respondent filed E.P.No.139 of 2013, for execution of the decree.

¶5

The petitioner filed E.A.No.88 of 2014, under Section 47 read with Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to declare the judgment and decree dated 27-06-2006 as inexecutable against him. He pleaded that though a decree was passed in the suit, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered between the parties, on 24-09-2009, and the respondent has relinquished her rights in the suit schedule property, in favour of the petitioner. The Executing Court dismissed the E.A., through its order dated 03-04-2014. Hence, this revision.

¶6

Heard Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

The decree, passed in O.S.No.337 of 2002, declaring the title of the respondent and directing delivery of the suit schedule property, in her favour; became final. In the context of recovery of possession of the property, the respondent filed the E.P. The petitioner filed the E.A.No.88 of 2014, under Section 47

¶8

read with Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to declare the decree as ununenforceable and non-dischargeable. The basis for the E.A is an alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 24-09-2009. Through the said memorandum, the respondent is said to have relinquished her rights in favour of the petitioner.

¶9

It is fundamental that if a judgment-debtor, under a decree, has taken the steps for the satisfaction of the decree,

¶10

the satisfaction can be recognized, if only it is recorded by the Executing Court. Order XXI C.P.C., prescribes the procedure to be followed in this behalf. Admittedly, the petitioner did not get the so-called satisfaction of the decree, recorded by the Court.

¶11

Secondly, the relinquishment of rights, that too, those, which have accrued under a decree, can be only through a registered document, as prescribed under law. An unregistered Memorandum of Understanding, the execution of which, is totally denied by the respondent; cannot constitute the basis. At any rate, the relief claimed in the E.A., is similar to the one, that can be claimed before an Appellate Court. The Executing Court has taken the correct view of the matter, and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision.

¶12

The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

The miscellaneous petition filed in this C.R.P shall also stand disposed of.

¶14

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶15

Dt.01-09-2014.

¶16

Pradeep Kumar Baresia v. Radha Baresia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Baresia v. Radha Baresia

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

S.G.L.Degree College Vs Ms.K.Sunitha, IAS

Anila Kumari Vs Sri Uday Sain

D Annapurna Vs D Deena

K.S.Venkata Raman Vs Prem Jeevan

B.Yellesh Yadav Vs R.Rajeshwar Goud

Mir Zaheer Mohammed Khan Vs M/s. Legend Estates Private Limited