BHERULAL Vs. RAMAUTAR
LAWS(MPH)-1980-2-12
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on February 27,1980

BHERULAL Appellant
VERSUS
RAMAUTAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VIRUPAX V. SHIDAPPA [REFERRED TO]
PRATAPRAI V. HEMANDAS; MAHAMMAD ALI V. BAHADUR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAGHOJI PARKAJI V. VITHOBA [REFERRED TO]
TULSIRAM V. KEVALRAM [REFERRED TO]
MUTHELAKKAMMAL V. NARIPPA REDDIAR [REFERRED TO]
DEVIDAS GANPATI V. SHREE BALA SAHEB SANSTHAN [REFERRED TO]
M P SHREEVASTAVA VS. VEENA [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI MAHRAJ VS. SHAMBHU NATH [REFERRED TO]
CHITRA TALKIES VS. DURGA DASS MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
S S NIRMALCHAND S/O S S RATANCHAND VS. PARMESHWARI DEVI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

RAJEEV KHANDELWAL VS. ARUN [LAWS(MPH)-1987-7-10] [OVERRULED]
DEV SINGH VS. SUBHASH CHANDRA [LAWS(MPH)-2004-2-68] [DISTINGUISHED]
JOSEPH VS. KANAKAM [LAWS(KER)-2002-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
V. PONNAPPAN VS. VIJAYAN [LAWS(KER)-1990-6-60] [REFERRED TO]
P.T. JOSEPH VS. KANAKAM [LAWS(KER)-2000-11-67] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Oza, J. - (1.)This revision petition was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court and after hearing the case the learned Judge felt that the question referred to us needs the decision of a larger Bench. Consequently the matter has been placed before us.
(2.)The question referred is: -" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the judgment-debtor can resist the execution of the decree without any application being made by him under Order. 21 Rule 2 CPC and the adjustment and/or satisfaction of the decree being recorded by the court, which passed the decree?"
(3.)The facts necessary to dispose of this matter are that the petitioner obtained a decree for ejectment against the non-applicant in Civil Suit No. 7/66-A. This decree was passed on 6-5-1986. The decree was for ejectment and arrears of rent. On 7th July, 1976, this decree was put into execution with prayer for eviction of the non-applicant. The non-applicant raised certain objections to the execution by saying that the decree-holder had obtained possession of the decretal premises and after having obtained possession thereof the decree- holder entered into a fresh agreement with the non-applicant and let out these premises to him on enhanced monthly rent of Rs. 12/-. It was therefore contended by the judgment-debtor non-applicant that the non-applicant has been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month but no receipts were passed and as the decree-holder wanted to further enhance the rent to which the non- applicant did not agree, the present execution petition has been filed. It was therefore contended that the decree has been satisfied and a fresh contract of tenancy has been entered into and the non-applicant judgment-debtor is in possession under a new contract. It was therefore contended that the decree for eviction could not be executed against him.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.