SATISH KUMAR Vs. GURBIR SINGH GHUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for specific performance filed by Gurbir Singh Ghuman against M/s Daulat Industries Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Civil Lines, Opposite Police Lines, Ludhiana in the year 1987 through its Managing Director Shri Ramesh Kumar on the basis of agreement dated 29.10.84 alleged to have been executed by the latter in his favour.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the suit, one Satish Kumar made application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC for an order for being impleaded as defendant. It was alleged by him in this application that there was liability due to the tune of Rs. 3,89,894/-. Property belonging to M/s Daulat Industries was attached for the recovery of Rs. 3,89,894/- as arrears due against them by the Collector. An entry was made in the revenue record on 27.5.85 with regard to the factum of attachment of this property. Proceedings for attachment were pending in the year 1984 and this fact was in the knowledge of the parties. Property was put to public auction. It is alleged that Satish Kumar happened to be the highest bidder and his bid was accepted and property was sold to him. Possession was delivered to him by the Collector. Sale was confirmed by Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. It is further alleged that after the purchase of the property, he constructed one Generator room, two servant quarters, two drawing rooms, eight bed rooms, two lobbies, two stores, two kitchens, four bath rooms, one verandah and is residing there with his father and elder brother and other members of the family. Mutation has also been sanctioned in his name. In the house tax record also, he is shown as owner in possession of this house. It is further alleged that he is bona fide purchaser at a public auction of this property measuring 1731 square yards for a consideration of Rs. 2.15 lacs and sale certificate was issued by Collector, Ludhiana on March 6, 1990 in his favour. It is alleged that the agreement set up by Gurbir Singh is forged with a view to causing him wrongful loss inasmuch as in agreement dated 29.10.84, the property of Mrs. Kamlesh Jain is mentioned though the agreement between Mrs. Kamlesh Jain and the defendant is said to be dated 23.1.85. He is bona fide purchaser in possession for consideration at public auction, sale in his favour should take precedence and he is a necessary party.

(3.) SATISH Kumar claims to have purchased this property at a Public auction held by the Collector. Sale certificate had been issued in his favour. Sale was confirmed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. He purchased this property for a consideration of Rs. 2.15 lacs. He says that he bona fide purchased this property.