RAM CHANDRA VERMAversusSHRI JAGAT SINGH AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 148
- Decided
- 30 January 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The appellant cannot be ejected from the premises in his possession except in accordance with law, and the appeal is allowed.
Summary
The respondents filed eviction suits against tenant Harkesh Rai Agarwal in 1975, both of which were dismissed, after which a compromise decree was entered on 26 Nov 1981 whereby Harkesh Rai agreed to surrender a room now occupied by the appellant, Ram Chandra Verma. When execution of the decree was sought, the appellant resisted and filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC to remove the obstruction, which the executing court ordered in his favour. The High Court dismissed the respondents’ appeal, and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Court examined whether the appellant was bound by the compromise decree and held that, because the co‑owners had admitted the appellant’s tenancy and the decree for eviction on compromise is void without proof of eviction grounds, the appellant is independently in possession of the 15 ft × 30 ft room. Consequently, the appellant cannot be ejected except in accordance with law and may file further applications under Order 21 Rule 97, while the respondents may pursue execution against Harkesh Rai. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is bound by the compromise decree entered into between Harkesh Rai Agarwal and the respondents.
- Whether the appellant can be lawfully ejected from the premises he occupies pending execution of the decree.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 21 Rule 97
Subjects
Judgment
A RAM CHANDRA VERMA
v.
SHRI JAGAT SINGH AND ORS.
JANUARY 30, 1996
B [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.j
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :
C Order 21 Rule 97--Compromise decree-Execution of-Party found in
possession-Entitled to obstmct execution defending his illegal disposses-
sion-Independently, the pmty can file application claiming his posses-
sion-Said party not to be ejected from the premises in his possession except
in accordance with law.
D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3227 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.93 of the Sikkim High
E
Court in C.F.A. No. 1 of 1991.
A.S. Bhasme for the Appellant.
..
G.S. Chatterjee for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Though notice has been sent on second occasion to respondent No.
F 3 on May 24, 1994, so far acknowledgment has not come back. Therefore,
notice on 3ru respondent must be deemed to have been served. Respon-
dents 1 & 2 are represented by Mr. G.S. Chatterjee.
Leave granted.
G The respondents filed Suit No. 19/75 on May 19, 1975 for eviction of
the tenant Harkesh Rai Agarwal on three grounds, namely, default, sub-
letting and personal requirement. The suit was dismissed on August 25,
1975. Again another suit was instituted on September 25, 1975 for the same
grounds. The suit was again dismissed. Pending appeal, Harkesh Rai and
H the respondent have compromised the matter. By compromise decree
1056
RAM CHANDRA VERMA v. JAGAT SINGH 1057
dated November 26, 1981, Harkesh Rai agreed to surrender one room now A
in possession of the appellant. When execution was sought to be taken and
the appellant resisted the execution, an application under Order 21 Rule
97 of CPC was filed to remove the obstruction which was ordered by the
Executing Court. On appeal, the High Court by order dated August 16,
1983 in F.A.J/91 dismissed the appeal. Thus this appeal by special leave.
B
The question is : whether the appellant is bound by the compromise
decree entered into by Harkesh Rai Agarwal and the respondents. It is
settled law that unless the conditions for eviction are proved, the decree
for eviction on compromise is a nullity. That apart, the property belongs
to four persons and three brothers made an admission prior to partition C
that the appellant is in possession of a room admeasuring 15' x 30' as tenant
and admittedly it fell to the share of Lunkaran Singhi. In view of those
admissions made by the co-owners who have got joint interest and made
their admissions against their interest, the admissions bind all the co-
owners. In view of that admission, the necessary conclusion is this that the
appellant is independently in possession of the premises admeasuring D
15'x30' in his own right as a tenant.
In the compromise decree, ultimately, the High Court granted pos-
session of the premises in occupation of the appellant. The appellant
having been found in possession, he is entitled to obstruct execution E
defending his illegal dispossession in execution proceedings and he is also
independently entitled to file application under Order 21 Rule 97 claiming
his possession. In view of the fact that he was found to be in possession,
the finding recorded by the Executing Court as upheld by the High Court
that he is a licensee on behalf of Harkesh Rai Agarwal is clearly illegal.
t We, therefore, hold that the appellant cannot be ejected from the premises F
in his possession except in accordance· with law. As regards the execution
of the compromise decree is concerned, it would be open to the respondent
lo proceed against Harkesh Rai Agarwal in accordance with law.
The appeal is accordingly a1lowed. No costs.
G
G.N. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.