Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2996 (PNJ)

Aggarwal Metal Inds. v. Jeet Kaur

2006-07-24

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2006
JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - This Execution Second Appeal has been filed against the rejection of the objections filed by the appellant against execution decree passed in favour of the decree-holder. 2. The case of the objector is that the decree-holders, who had obtained the ejectment order against the judgment-debtor in execution of the said ejectment order had wrongly taken possession from the applicant-appellant on 30.4.1991 through the Bailiff of the Court under the guise of factory premises belonging to Rose Metal Industries, Jagadhri. It was the further case of the objector that he was in legal possession of the factory premises as a tenant and could not be legally dispossessed under the garb of execution of the ejectment order favouring the decree-holders. 3. Learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the contention of the appellant-objector that he was in actual physical possession of the property in question which was earlier tenanted by Bala Ji Industries, who had sold the same to the objection-petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- on 26.4.1980 and thereafter he acquired the status of a licensee on 5.2.1990 by becoming a tenant under Krishan Chand, auction purchaser, was without any force and was rejected on the ground that the machinery installed could be sold, but not the land on which the machinery was installed because the sale of land can be effected through a registered document if it is of a sum of Rs. 100/- or more. It also took notice of the fact that in case the property was sold to M/s. Aggarwal Industries by Bala Ji Metal Industries, then it is not understood how the objector become a tenant under Krishan Chand, auction purchaser, because he had filed a suit on 4.4.1989 against Parduman Singh, Jai Singh, M/s. Shiv Ji Metal Works, through its partner Parduman Singh, Smt. Jeet Kaur, Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, Mehar Chand and M/s. Aggarwal Metal Industries through Lala Hari Chand, its partners, Shadi Ram, M/s. Rose Metal Industries through its partner Shadi Ram and M/s. Balaji Metal Industries through its partner Shadi Ram. Thus the Court came to the conclusion that Shri Krishan Chand, adopted son of Ganga Ram was not in possession of the suit property on the date of suit. Thus the Court came to the conclusion that Shri Krishan Chand, adopted son of Ganga Ram was not in possession of the suit property on the date of suit. On this basis, the Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not become a tenant under Krishan Chand, adopted son of Ganga Ram. The Court further took notice of the fact that civil suit titled as Krishan Chand v. Parduman Singh and others was pending in the Court of Ms. Neena Chaudhary, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri. The learned Court also came to the conclusion that the filing of the suit further showed that Shri Krishan Chand was not in possession of the property in dispute. 4. The objector filed the appeal against rejection of their objections in the Court of Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. The said appeal was also rejected by holding that the present objector-appellant was not in possession of the suit property as alleged in the application. The learned lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the present objector- appellant was claiming possession through Shri Krishan Chand, who was never in possession of the premises in question and, therefore, there was no reason to hand over possession of the premises by the said Krishan Chand, the alleged landlord of the premises in question to the present appellant. It was noticed that at the time of delivery of possession, no objection was raised by the appellant. The Court also rightly held that the appellant was claiming possession through Krishan Chand, who had earlier filed objections, which were dismissed by the executing Court on 19th of December 1990. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the arguments raised before the learned Courts below and claimed that he being a tenant, was entitled to protect his possession against the decree-holders in execution of the decree in which he was not a party. Once the objections of Krishan Chand were rejected, the objections filed on behalf of the present appellant were not maintainable as he was claiming his right through Krishan Chand. Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.