TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the decree-holder, as de facto manager of the Math, could execute the decree for possession against persons adjudged to be trespassers even though the Mahant's title was left open; (ii) Whether the Civil Judge had jurisdiction to stay execution under Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the stay order could be sustained.
Issue (i): Whether the decree-holder, as de facto manager of the Math, could execute the decree for possession against persons adjudged to be trespassers even though the Mahant's title was left open.
Analysis: The prior adjudication had conclusively held that the property belonged to the Math, that the opposite parties were rank trespassers, and that the decree-holder was in management and control of the Math properties. Even though the question of his title as Mahant was left open, the right to protect the estate and to recover possession from trespassers was already determined. A decree for possession against trespassers necessarily carried with it authority to enforce delivery through the person found to be in de facto management of the property.
Conclusion: The decree-holder was entitled to execute the decree and recover possession from the trespassers, and the plea that his title had to be first established was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the Civil Judge had jurisdiction to stay execution under Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the stay order could be sustained.
Analysis: The power under Order XXI Rule 29 is confined to the court before which the execution proceedings are pending and, on the facts, the relevant decree had not been passed by the Civil Judge who granted the stay. The stay was therefore beyond jurisdiction. The order also ran contrary to the earlier final directions of the Court and could not stand in the face of the binding effect of those directions under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Conclusion: The stay order was without jurisdiction and was treated as a nullity.
Final Conclusion: The decree for possession was directed to be implemented in favour of the decree-holder, the execution stay was rejected in substance, and contempt notice was directed against Sri Krishna Singh for obstructing compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: A de facto manager of an estate can execute and enforce a decree for possession against adjudged trespassers, and a stay of execution under Order XXI Rule 29 can be granted only by the court competent under that provision; an order passed in disregard of binding final directions is without jurisdiction and non est.
TaxTMI 
