Sushil Harkauli, J. - (1.) The decree for eviction was obtained by the contesting respondent in 1978 i.e. more than 30 years ago. The suit was contested by the elder brother of the petitioner up to second appeal. Having lost, and faced with the Execution Proceedings of the decree, now apparently the petitioners were set up for a second round of litigation claiming in their objection under Order- XXI Rule- 97/101 that they were not made parties to the suit or the decree and therefore, they were not bound by the decree and they could not be evicted in Execution of the decree. The objection has been rejected by the Executing Court and therefore, this writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The crucial question in such circumstance, which needs to be examined, is whether the right being claimed by the objector to the execution is a right independent of the judgement debtor or the right has been derived from and through the judgement debtor. Admittedly, the elder brother of the petitioners was a party to the suit and is the judgement debtor. The issue is whether the possession of the petitioners, who are the younger brothers of the judgement debtor, is because of a concession or license granted by the elder brother allowing them to live in the house as his family or they were inducted into possession directly by the owner or the landlord, independently and separate from the elder brother. Further, if they plead independent induction, they will have to show separate portion of premises in which they were inducted.
(3.) Therefore, having regard to the normal behaviour and human conduct in the Indian society, it would be apparent that the petitioners came into possession as family of the elder brother and therefore, their right to possession is through the judgement debtor and not independent.;