TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court directs swift resolution of property dispute under Order 21, Rule 97</h1> <h3>NOORDUDDIN Versus K.L. ANAND (DR.)</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the executing court to adjudicate the appellant's claim regarding Khasra No. 179 within six months. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the sale of evacuee properties.2. Adjudication of right, title, and interest in the property under Order 21, Rule 97 of CPC.3. Execution of the decree and resistance to possession.Summary:1. Validity of the Sale of Evacuee Properties:The properties bearing Khasra Sakni Nos. 13 and 14 were declared as evacuee properties and sold to the respondent, Dr. K.L. Anand, through public auction. The sale certificates were issued on 26-9-1968. Rehmatullah and Wazu challenged the sales in WP No. 960 of 1969, claiming an interest in the properties and alleging the sale was illegal. The writ petition was dismissed, and the decision was affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 95 of 1978, which became final.2. Adjudication of Right, Title, and Interest in the Property under Order 21, Rule 97 of CPC:The appellant resisted the execution of the decree, claiming that his family had not migrated to Pakistan and that the land in question (Khasra No. 179) was not part of the properties sold to the respondent. The executing court dismissed the appellant's application, and the High Court upheld this decision, stating that the controversy was concluded in WP No. 960 of 1969. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that under Order 21, Rule 97, the court must adjudicate upon the right, title, and interest claimed in the property. The scheme of the Code mandates that such adjudication is conclusive and not subject to separate suits.3. Execution of the Decree and Resistance to Possession:The Supreme Court noted that the appellant's possession should be protected pending adjudication. The executing court must determine whether Khasra No. 179 is part of Khasra Sakni Nos. 13 and 14 and if the respondent is entitled to take possession of Khasra No. 179. The orders of the lower courts were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the executing court for adjudication. The court may appoint a Commissioner to demarcate the properties and submit a report.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the executing court was directed to dispose of the application within six months, ensuring the adjudication of the appellant's claim regarding Khasra No. 179. The respondent may apply for the appointment of a Commissioner for property demarcation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
