RAM CHANDRA VERMA Vs. JAGAT SINGHI
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
RAM CHANDRA VERMA
Click here to view full judgement.
S.N.BHARGAVA, C.J. -
(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge, Sikkim, dated 5/11/1990, allowing the application of the decree-holders under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) Civil Suit No. 35 of 1975 was instituted in the Court of the District Judge, Sikkim, on 25-9-1975 by Manmull Singhi for the eviction of his tenant Harkesh Rai Agarwala from "Two rooms in the third floor of the four-storeyed cemented building situated at Lall Market road, Gangtok Bazar" Gangtok. The suit was dismissed by the learned District Judge. The dismissal was challenged in Civil 1st. Appeal No. 1 of 1979 in the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, com-promise was effected between the plaintiff, Manmull Singhi, and the tenant, Shri Harkesh Rai Agarwala. As per the terms and conditions of the compromise, the plaintiff was to get a decree of eviction in respect of the two rooms as shown in the plan in the schedule of the compromise petition. The front room was shown in green colour and the plaintiff, Manmull Singhi, got possession thereof in terms of the compromise. The other room which was described as the back room was shown in red colour. Paragraph 5 of the compromise petition contains an admission of the tenant Harkesh Rai Agarwal that he had allowed and permitted the present appel-lant Ram Chandra Soni alias Verma to occupy the back room shown in red as a licencee. In terms of the compromise the appeal was allowed on 26-11-1981 and the suit was decreed on the terms and conditions of the compromise petition so far as it related to the suit. The decree-holder filed Civil Execu-tion Case No. 1 of 1982 praying for possession of this back room shown in red colour, on 12-1-1982. During the pendency of the execu-tion, Manmull Singhi died and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are his legal representatives. The appellant, Ram Chandra Verma, resisted the execution. On 20-10-1982, the decree-holder filed an application under Order 21, Rule 97, C.P.C., giving rise to this appeal, on the allegation that the objector-appellant Ram Chandra Verma was resisting or obstructing him in obtaining the possession for which he had no locus standi whatsoever to do. The decree-holder alleged that the appellant had been inducted by the tenant Harkesh Rai Agrawal as a licencee in the year 1974-75 and as such the decree was binding upon the objector. Giving details of the factual aspect, the decree-holder alleged that he Banney Chand Singhi and Lunkaran Singhi were the owners of the four storeyed R.C.C. buildings, on the third floor of which the room in question is situated, and that by virtue of family partition in the year 1973, the portion which was in occupation of the judgement-debtor Harkesh Rai Agrawal fell in the share of the decree-holder, Manmull Singhi, and another portion measuring 30' x 14' in respect of which the objector-appellant Ram Chandra Verma is a tenant fell in the share of Lunkaran Singhi and one other portion occupied by Gopiram Jogendra Prasad fell in the share of Banney Chand Singhi. According to the decree-holder, the room in question was not in the tenancy of the appellant but was in the tenancy of the judgement-debtor Harkesh Rai Agarwal. The appellant, Ram Chandra Verma, filed an objection to the application claiming himself to be the tenant in respect of the disputed room also and alleging that the compromise petition had been filed in collusion of the decree-holder and the judgement-debtor. He has averred that the room in question was not part of the suit premises and that Harkesh Rai Agarwal was a tenant in respect of only one room of which the decree-holder had already got the posses-sion. He claimed to be a tenant in respect of all the rooms which are under his occupation right from the very inception of the tenancy under Manmull Singhi, Banney Chand Singhi and Lunkaran Singhi, tendering rent to all these three persons. Regarding parti-tion, he alleged that he was not aware of the family partition.
(3.) By the impugned order, the learned District Judge allowed the application and directed that the execution of the compromise decree would proceed as per law.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.