- (1.) This Execution Second Appeal has been filed against the rejection of the objections filed by the appellant against execution decree passed in favour of the decree-holder.
(2.) The case of the objector is that the decree-holders, who had obtained the ejectment order against the judgment-debtor in execution of the said ejectment order had wrongly taken possession from the applicant-appellant on 30.4.1991 through the Bailiff of the Court under the guise of factory premises belonging to Rose Metal Industries, Jagadhri. It was the further case of the objector that he was in legal possession of the factory premises as a tenant and could not be legally dispossessed under the garb of execution of the ejectment order favouring the decree-holders.
(3.) Learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the contention of the appellant-objector that he was in actual physical possession of the property in question which was earlier tenanted by Bala Ji Industries, who had sold the same to the objection-petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- on 26.4.1980 and thereafter he acquired the status of a licensee on 5.2.1990 by becoming a tenant under Krishan Chand, auction purchaser, was without any force and was rejected on the ground that the machinery installed could be sold, but not the land on which the machinery was installed because the sale of land can be effected through a registered document if it is of a sum of Rs. 100/- or more. It also took notice of the fact that in case the property was sold to M/s. Aggarwal Industries by Bala Ji Metal Industries, then it is not understood how the objector become a tenant under Krishan Chand, auction purchaser, because he had filed a suit on 4.4.1989 against Parduman Singh, Jai Singh, M/s. Shiv Ji Metal Works, through its partner Parduman Singh, Smt. Jeet Kaur, Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, Mehar Chand and M/s. Aggarwal Metal Industries through Lala Hari Chand, its partners, Shadi Ram, M/s. Rose Metal Industries through its partner Shadi Ram and M/s. Balaji Metal Industries through its partner Shadi Ram. Thus the Court came to the conclusion that Shri Krishan Chand, adopted son of Ganga Ram was not in possession of the suit property on the date of suit. On this basis, the Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not become a tenant under Krishan Chand, adopted son of Ganga Ram. The Court further took notice of the fact that civil suit titled as Krishan Chand v. Parduman Singh and others was pending in the Court of Ms. Neena Chaudhary, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri. The learned Court also came to the conclusion that the filing of the suit further showed that Shri Krishan Chand was not in possession of the property in dispute.;