BHAG SINGH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent orders of the Courts below dismissing the third party objections filed by the appellant.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Kartar Singh entered into an agreement to sell the property in dispute in favour of Mohinder Singh on 13.12.1993. On 31.08.1994, the appellant among others filed a suit against Kartar Singh and others claiming a declaration that they have become owner of the property in dispute by way of adverse possession. Even though all the defendants filed written statements denying the claim of the appellant, yet in his cross-examination, Kartar Singh very conveniently accepted their claim and that suit was decreed on 22.11.1995. Prior to that, on 09.05.1995, respondent Mohinder Singh had filed a suit for specific performance against Kartar Singh in respect of agreement to sell dated 13.12.1993. At one stage, the appellant moved an application in the said suit for impleading him as party but that application was declined. Ultimately the said suit for specific performance was decreed on 04.11.1997. The said judgments and decrees have admittedly become final. Thereafter the respondents filed an application for execution in which the appellant filed third party objections claiming that they had become owners of the suit property in view of the judgment and decree dated 22.11.1995. Both the Courts below noticed that the said suit had been decreed only because Kartar Singh, in his crossexamination, had admitted the claim of appellant and came to the conclusion that it was a collusive suit which had been filed in conjunction with each other only to defeat the rights of Mohinder Singh-the vendee. Consequently, both the Courts below dismissed the objections.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Executing Court could not have critically analyzed the judgment and decree dated 22.11.1995 and the only option left before the Executing Court was to either dismiss the execution application or to adjourn the same sine die to enable Mohinder Singh to file a suit challenging that decree and only when that decree was set-aside by regularly instituted suit, the execution could have gone ahead.