KUSUM HARILAL SONI versus CHANDRLKA NANDLAL MEHTA AND ANR.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 12-04-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 389 
KUSUM HARILAL SONI 
v. 
CHANDRlKA NANDLAL MEHTA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3785 of2016) 
APRlL 12, 2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.21, rr. 41 and 42 -
Execution of Decree - Eviction proceedings u/s. 13A(2) of Bombay 
Rent Act, 1947 - Decree in favour of landlord - Directing eviction 
of premises and compensation to Landlord - Tenant gave possession 
of tenanted premises, but amount of compensation not paid -
Application u!Or. XX! n: 41 and 42 by Landlord/decree-holder for 
warrant of recovery of compensation and for attachment of property 
of the judgment-debtor a/ongwith injunction on judgment-debtor 
from selling the property - Application allowed - Notice u!Or. XX! 
r. 22 filed - High Court made the notice absolute - Thereafter 
warrant of attachment of property was issued by High Court -
Thereafter daughter of judgment-debtor filed Chamber Summon for 
setting aside the attachment on the ground that the judgment-debtor 
had sold the property to her by MOU dated 11.06.1995 and an 
unregistered agreement dated 26.06.2001 - High Court set aside 
the attachment - On appeal, held: The facts of the case indicate 
that MOU and the agreement were set up by the judgment-debtor in 
order to delay and frustrate the execution proceedings - Mother 
and daughter had illegally attempted to get the attachment cancelled 
by setting up false documents - Property in question was rightly 
attached in execution proceedings. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The order for eviction and compensation was 
passed way back on 6.12.2000 by the competent authority, which 
has attained finality up to this Court. Respondent No. 1 had stated 
that in the year 2000 the flat in question was in the name of herself 
and her daughter in joint names. 
She has not stated that any 
such MOU bad been entered into between mother and daughter. 
The nature of MOU indicates that even after marriage of 
daughter, when site ceases to be in possession of flat in question, 
389 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
the mother, judgment-debtor will remain in possession. MOU 
casts a duty upon respondent No. 2 to look after and maintain the 
vendor and her family even after her marriage and ceases to stay 
in the flat in question with the vendor. Such an understanding by 
the married daughter by itself falsifies the documents and indicates 
that a dubious transaction had been entered into between 
B 
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to illegally defeat the order of payment 
of compensation. Thus it is clear that daughter has been set upon 
false pretext to obstruct execution of order dated 6.12.2000. The 
statement of the judgment-debtor also falsifies MOU and the 
subsequent unregistered documents cannot be said to be bo11a 
C 
fide. The facts indicate that the MOU and the agreement had 
been set up by respondent No. 1 in order to delay and frustrate 
the eviction order and payment of compensation. It was clearly 
collusive and in order to defeat the execution proceedings. The 
mother and daughter had illegally attempted to get the attachment 
0 
cancelled by setting up false documents in favour of respondent 
No. 2 on the basis of MOU and the unregistered agreement which 
had not seen the light of the day for several years. [Para 10) (393-
F; 394-E-H; 395-A] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURJSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3785 
of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.06.2013 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in Chamber Summons No. 1249 of 2009 in 
Execution Application No. 318 of2005 in Application Case No. 13 of 
1996] 
F 
Sushi! Karanjkar, K. N. Rai, Advs., for the Appellant. 
P. N. Gupta, Ms. Bharti Gupta, Advs., for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARUN MISHRA, J. I. Leave granted. 
G 
2. The appellant has questioned the order passed by the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in relation to Chamber Summons No. 
1249 of2009 arising out of Execution Application No. 3 I 8 of2005 thereby 
setting aside the attachment of Flat No. 408, Saidham Co-operative 
Society Sodawala Lane, Borivli (West), Mumbai. 
H 
3. The appellant had filed a suit for eviction with respect to Flat 
KUSUM HARILAL SONI v. CHANDRIKA NANDLAL MEHTA 391 
rARUN MISHRA, J.l 
No. F-201, Building No.4, Prem Nagar, Mandpesbwar Road, Borivali 
(West), Mumbai against respondent no. 1 as license had expired on 
1.11. 1994. 
Thereafter the premises were not vacated, nor th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.