Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 621 (RAJ)

Privambada M. Shetty v. LRs. of Laxmi Lal

2016-05-04

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 12.04.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajsamand, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. and Order 21, Rule 29 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been rejected. 2. The petitioner's father Laxmi Lal filed a suit for specific performance of contract against one Radhu Lal, which was dismissed by the trial court on 05.02.1973; the first appeal filed by Laxmi Lal was allowed by the appellate court on 18.11.1978, against which, second appeal was filed by the defendants; during pendency of the second appeal, Laxmi Lal expired in the year 1983; on an application filed by the appellant-judgment debtor under Order 22, Rule 4 C.P.C. the legal representatives of Laxmi Lal named therein were impleaded as party; the second appeal was dismissed on 23.05.1991. The execution proceedings, which were stayed in the second appeal, were restarted on an application filed by the decree-holders. The executing court on 23.02.2007 executed the sale deed in favour of legal representatives of Laxmi Lal as the judgment-debtors failed to comply with the directions contained in the decree; the judgment-debtors raised objections against the draft sale deed, which objections were dismissed by the executing court on 18.01.2010, against which, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1696/2010 was filed, which was disposed of directing the executing court to execute supplementary sale deed taking care of the discrepancy in the Khasra number of the suit property; the judgment-debtors raised objections regarding non-impleadment of the legal representatives of the decree-holder, which objection was dismissed on 19.03.2010 and pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the supplementary sale deed was executed on 27.03.2010, resulting in, the satisfaction of decree for specific performance as passed by the first appellate court. 3. It appears that in the meanwhile, after the sale deed dated 23.02.2007 was executed by the executing court and before the supplementary sale deed dated 27.03.2010 was executed, seven sale deeds dated 11.02.2010 were executed by the legal representatives of the deceased Laxmi Lal in favour of various purchasers. The said purchasers were impleaded as party to the execution proceedings by the executing court by its order dated 05.12.2013. The said purchasers were impleaded as party to the execution proceedings by the executing court by its order dated 05.12.2013. Where after, the present petitioner filed an application on 21.03.2014 under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. and Order 21, Rule 29 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. inter alia, indicating the family tree of the deceased Laxmi Lal and alleging that her name has deliberately not been indicated and she came to know about the same sometime back as she is residing at Bombay; applicant is a legal representative and has share in the property of the deceased Laxmi Lal; on account of non-impleadment, in the sale deed executed by executing court, her name has not been included and she is being deprived of her share. It was claimed that it is necessary to add her name as legal representative of the deceased Laxmi Lal and ¼th share be registered in her name and till such time, the said proceedings are concluded, the proceedings in the execution may be stayed. Ultimately, a prayer similar to what was indicated in the application was made for impleadment. 4. The application was opposed. It was indicated that the application was not maintainable, the applicant was well aware of the execution of the sale deed dated 23.02.2007 and estate of Laxmi Lal was duly represented; the sale deeds of the property in question have been executed on 11.02.2010 and she has been a consenting party to the said sale deeds and is bound by her own conduct and, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed. 5. The executing court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the sale deeds executed by the legal representatives of the deceased Laxmi Lal bear applicant's signatures and thumb impression, which clearly indicates that all the legal representatives of the deceased Laxmi Lal have executed the sale deed in favour of the purchasers. It was not the case of the applicant that her signatures are forged and once she has put her signatures on the sale deed, she does not have any right, title or interest in the property in question and, consequently, dismissed the application. 6. It was not the case of the applicant that her signatures are forged and once she has put her signatures on the sale deed, she does not have any right, title or interest in the property in question and, consequently, dismissed the application. 6. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the executing court committed error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner is a class I heir of deceased Laxmi Lal and is entitled to share in the property. The signatures on the sale deeds cannot deprive her of right in the property and that she was not granted any opportunity to clarify her stand regarding the signatures and, therefore, the order passed by the executing court deserves to be quashed and set aside. It was further submitted that the rights of the petitioner can only be adjudicated in the present proceedings and independent proceedings for the said purpose were not maintainable. 7. Reliance was placed on Gangabai Gopaldas Mohata v. Fulchand & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1812 ; Nagappa v. Dodda Bharamappa & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 3567 (1)and Century Textiles Industries Ltd. v. Deepak Jain & Anr., 2009 DNJ (SC) 1045. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-caveator opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that once the sale deeds dated 11.02.2010 were executed along with the petitioner as a consenting party to the same, the original decree-holders i.e. legal representatives of the deceased Laxmi Lal ceased to have any interest in the property in question and it is only the purchasers, who were impleaded as parties before the executing court, are prosecuting the execution proceedings for the limited purpose of possession of the property, which is subject matter of the sale deed. It was further submitted that once the sale deed and supplementary sale deed was executed by the executing court, the decree to the extent of specific performance stood satisfied and, thereafter, once the sale took place, the legal representatives of the deceased Laxmi Lal had no interest. 9. It was further submitted that once the sale deed and supplementary sale deed was executed by the executing court, the decree to the extent of specific performance stood satisfied and, thereafter, once the sale took place, the legal representatives of the deceased Laxmi Lal had no interest. 9. Further submissions were made that as in the second appeal, the legal representatives were impleaded by the appellants therein i.e. the judgment-debtors and the executing court executed the sale deed in their favour only, once the transfer was required to be made, the petitioner was also included as a consenting party to the said sale deeds as on account of the sale deeds executed by the executing court, the property had only vested in the persons named mentioned therein and the petitioner having signed the sale deeds as a consenting party, is now estopped from claiming otherwise. No explanation is forthcoming from the petitioner for the reasons of her signing the documents in question and, therefore, there is no substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. In view of the fact that the seven sale deeds, which were placed on record by the petitioner as Annex.-6 bear the endorsement ^^bl fodz; foys[k ls eSa lger gwaA^^ along with petitioner's signatures in English and her thumb impression, by order dated 17.11.2014, this court noticed that in the writ petition and/or before the executing court apparently no explanation whatsoever was provided by the petitioner regarding the reasons for her appending the signatures to the sale deeds (Annex.-6) and the counsel for the petitioner was granted time to place on record any material in this regard. After seeking time on four occasions, an affidavit dated 02.03.2015 was produced on behalf of the petitioner, wherein inter alia, the following was indicated:- ^^2- eSa] 'kiFkiwoZ fuosnu djrh gwa fd bl gdjlh dh dk;Zokgh ds U;k;ky; }kjk y{ehukjk;.k dh fof/kd izfrfuf/k ds i{k esa fnukad 23-02-2007 dks rFkk iwjd fodz; i= fnukad 29-03-2010 dks tks fodz; i= fu"ikfnr djok;s x;s Fks mlesa esjk iz;Ecnk dk uke ugha Fkk rFkk esjs HkkbZ d`".kpan ds ifjokj okyksa ls feyhHkxr dj gdjlh dh i=koyh esa fu;qDr vf/koDrk ds }kjk vius feyus okyksa ds uke fnukad 11-02-2010 dks bl izdj.k ls lEcfU/kr fookfnr Hkwfe;ksa dh fodz; jftLV~h;k vtqZuyky] ';keflag] lksguyky] 'kEHkwyky] jktdqekj] fxfj'kpUnz firk vEckyky] dkS'kY;k] yhyk] foeyk iRuh egsUnz] fouksn] iq"ik ikifM;k] fnyhi tSu ds i{k esa dkjokbZ xbZ Fkh ,oa eq>s fiz;Ecnk dks i<+k;k ugha x;k Fkk ,oa u i<+dj lquk;k x;k FkkA vkuu Qkuu esa /kks[ks ls gLrk{kj djok;s tkus ls eq> fiz;Ecnk ds mDr fodz; i= ds vfUre i`"V ij odhy lkgc }kjk eq>s eqxkyrk esa j[krs gq, /kks[ks ls o diViwoZd gLrk{kj djok;s x;s gSa vki U;k;ky; }kjk e`rd y{ehyky ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa ds uke tks iwjd fodz; i= fnukad 29-03-2010 dks fu"ikfnr djok;k x;k gS ds i'pkr~ fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa }kjk fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ nLrkost 11-02-2010 ds ckn esa dzsrkx.k ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr ugha fd;k x;k gSA eq> fiz;Ecnk us dHkh fdlh dks Hkh viuk fgLlk fodz; ugha fd;k gS ,oa fdlh ds i{k esa gd R;kx ugha fd;k gSA esjs HkkbZ fxjh'k pUn }kjk Hkh ftyk lrdZrk lfefr] dysDV~sV jktleUn esa Hkh bl lEcU/k esa dk;Zokgh gsrq izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj j[kk gS ftlds dzekad i0 41 ¼139@212½ lrdZrk@2012@1649 fnukad 10-09-2012 gSA^^ 12. The substance of the above affidavit has been that the petitioner did not read nor was read over the documents and the documents were got signed in a hurry, fraudulently. 13. A bare look at the sequence of events and the affidavit of the petitioner would indicate that once the sale deed dated 23.02.2007 was executed by the executing court in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased Laxmi Lal, whose names appeared as legal representatives in the second appeal, the legal representatives decided to transfer the entire property as comprised in the sale deed dated 23.02.2007 and seven sale deeds in favour of the various transferees were executed. 14. 14. A bare look at the transfer deeds (Annex.-6) clearly indicate that besides bearing the signatures of the persons indicated as transferees, all the seven sale deeds bear signatures and thumb impression of the petitioner with an endorsement that she agrees to the sale deed. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she is a resident of Bombay and the sale deeds were executed before the Sub-Registrar, Rajsamand on 11.02.2010 when she was present there and has put her signatures not on one document, but seven sale deeds. Where after, apparently for the first time, by way of the application filed under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. the petitioner appears to have raised her objection on 21.03.2014 and between the period 11.02.2010 till filing of the application, she did not raise any objection whatsoever qua the execution of the documents in question. 15. The very fact that the petitioner has put her signatures in English, necessarily means that she is educated/qualified and had come from Bombay to Rajsamand for the purpose of executing the said sale deeds. Interestingly, in the application before the executing court, she did not make any mention of her signatures on the sale deeds. Where after, when the application was rejected on account of the court finding her a consenting party to the transfers, even in the present writ petition, no explanation was offered and even when on directions given by this Court, an affidavit has been produced, absolutely vague allegations and averments have been made. The blame has been put on the advocate that by misrepresentation, fraudulently the signatures were got appended on the sale deeds, however, the nature of misrepresentation/what led the petitioner to sign the said sale deeds have not been indicated. 16. In view of the fact that the petitioner did not raise any issue for over 3½ years from execution of the sale deeds and did not offer any explanation in the application before the executing court/writ petition before this Court and, thereafter has given an absolutely vague explanation regarding her signatures, the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted and the said attempted explanation, therefore, being without any substance is rejected. 17. 17. Further, it is apparent from the record that pursuant to the appellate decree, after dismissal of the second appeal, the sale deed was executed by the executing court in favour of persons named as legal representatives by the second appellate court and the said legal representatives along with the petitioner as a consenting party, executed the sale deeds in favour of several persons and with the execution of the said sale deeds in so far as the original judgment-debtors i.e. legal representatives of the deceased Laxmi Lal are concerned, their right, title or interest in the suit property came to an end. Where after, the transferees from the legal representatives of the deceased Laxmi Lal got themselves impleaded as party in the execution proceedings and are prosecuting the same for the purpose of obtaining possession in terms of the decree and it is indicated that out of the entire land, only execution of 7 Biswa of land remains. 18. In view thereof in so far as the interest of the legal representatives of the deceased Laxmi Lal is concerned, the same came to an end with the execution of the sale deeds dated 11.02.2010 and the petitioner, in the execution proceedings, which are pending before the executing court for the purpose of possession, cannot seek impleadment as party in her status as legal representative of deceased Laxmi Lal. 19. So far as the reliance placed on judgments in the case of Gangabai Gopaldas Mohata (supra), Nagappa (supra) and Century Textiles Industries Ltd. (supra) are concerned, the same have no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, by petitioner's own conduct, she has ceased to have any interest in the subject matter of the execution, besides as already noticed hereinbefore, the aspect as to who is the legal representative of the deceased Laxmi Lal has no implication on the pending execution proceedings. The petitioner, if has any issue qua the execution of sale deeds dated 11.02.2010 bearing her signatures as consenting party, the said aspect cannot form the subject matter of the present execution proceedings and the remedy, if any, for the petitioner lies somewhere else. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.