Chandra Verma Vs. Shri Jagat Singh Singhi & Ors  INSC 155 (30 January 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.Ahmad Saghir S. (J) G.B. Pattanaik (J)
1996 AIR 1809 JT 1996 (2) 494 1996 SCALE (2)314
O R D
notice has been sent on second occasion to respondent No.3 on May 24, 1994, so far acknowledgement has not
come back. Therefore, notice on 3rd respondent must be deemed to have been
served. Respondents 1 & 2 are represented by Mr. G.S. Chatterjee.
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 the respondent have
compromised the matter. By compromise decree dated November 26, 1981, Harkesh Rai agreed to surrender one room now in possession
of the appellant.
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.1/91 dismissed the appeal. Thus this appeal by special leave.
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 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 15' x 30' in his own right as a tenant.
compromise decree, ultimately, the High Court granted possession of the
premises in occupation of the appellant. The appellant having been found in
possession, he is entitled to obstruct execution defending his 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. We,
therefore, hold that the appellant cannot be ejected from the premises 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 to proceed
against Harkesh Rai Agarwal in accordance with law.
appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.