LexRAHUL S SHAH versus JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 279 [2021] 4 S.C.R. 279 279 RAHUL S SHAH v. JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 1659–1660 of 2021) APRIL 22, 2021 [S.A. BOBDE, CJI, L. NAGESWARA RAO AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.] Constitution of India: Arts. 142, 141 and 144 – Delay in the execution proceedings and abuse of process of execution court – Frivolous attempts by unsuccessful litigants to putting up spurious objections and setting up third parties, to object, delay and obstruct the execution of a decree – Urgent need to reduce the delay – In view thereof, to avoid controversies and multiple issues emanating from the rights claimed by third parties, the Court must play an active role in deciding all such related issues to the subject matter during adjudication of the suit itself and ensure that a clear, unambiguous, and executable decree is passed in any suit – Thus, in larger public interest to subserve the process of justice, issuance of few mandatory directions to all courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings – Also issuance of directions to all the High Courts to reconsider and update all rules relating to execution of decrees, made under exercise of its powers u/Art. 227 and s. 122 CPC within stipulated period –Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord, XXI r. 2, 11, 22, 30 to 36, 97, 98, 99, ss. 47, 51. The General Manager of the Raja Durbhunga v. Maharaja Coomar Ramaput Sing (1871–72) 14 Moore’s I. A. 605; Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubna v Sita Saran Bubna (2009) 9 SCC 689 : [2009] 14 SCR 40; Ghan Shyam Das Gupta v. Anant Kumar Sinha AIR 1991 SC 2251 : [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 119 – referred to. Case Law Reference (1871–72) 14 Moore’s I.A. 605 referred to Para 23 [2009] 14 SCR 40 referred to Para 23 [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 119 referred to Para 40 A B C D E F G H 280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1659- 1660 of 2021. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2020 of the High Court of Karnataka, at Bengaluru in W.P. No.39296/2016 [GM-CPC] & W.P. No.39382/2016. With Civil Appeal Nos.1661-1662 And 1663-1664 of 2021. Arunava Mukherjee, Shailesh Madiyal, Ms. Rakhi M., Paras Jain, T. Harish Kumar, Advs. for the appearing Parties. The following Order of the court was passed : ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 16th January, 2020 of the Karnataka High Court which dismissed several Writ Petitions. The course of the litigation highlights the malaise of constant abuse of procedural provisions which defeats justice, i.e. frivolous attempts by unsuccessful litigants to putting up spurious objections and setting up third parties, to object, delay and obstruct the execution of a decree. 3. The third respondent (hereafter referred to as ‘Narayanamma’) had purchased a property measuring 1 Acre (Survey No. 15/2) of Deevatige Ramanahalli, Mysore Road, Bengaluru (hereafter referred to as ‘suit property’) under the sale deed dated 17.03.1960. The suit land was converted and got merged in the municipal limits of Bengaluru and was assigned with Municipal Corporation No. 327 and 328, Mysore Road, Bengaluru. Narayanamma sold 1908 square yard of the suit property in Municipal Corporation (Survey No. 327) to 2nd and 3rd respondents (hereafter referred to ‘Jitendra’ and `Urmila’) under a sale deed dated 13.05.1986. This was demarcated with the sketch annexed to the sale deed. The adjacent portion of property, Survey No. 327 was sold to Shri Moolendra Kumar Gandhi and Smt. Baby Gandhi by another sale deed dated 13.05.1986. This property was also demarcated in the sketch and clearly shows its dimensions and boundaries annexed to the sale deed. Therefore, the first two respondents, Shri Moolendra Kumar Gandhi and Smt. Baby Gandhi became absolute owners of the suit A B C D E F G H 281 property with the totally admeasuring of 3871 square yards. Thus, Narayanamma had sold about 34,839 square feet of the property out of 1 Acre land (43,860 square feet) owned by her. Subsequently, after the sale of the major portion of the said property to the first two respondents and their brother, Narayanamma who is the mother of A. Ramachandra Reddy the fourth respondent (hereafter called “the vendors”) filed a suit1 for declaration that the two sale deeds in favour of the first two respondents (also called “purchasers” or “decree-holders”) as well as against Shri Moolendra Kumar Gandhi etc. were void. The vendors and Shri Anjan Reddy (deceased re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.