Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

concerned vis-a-vis them, to enforce the compromise decree of specific performance against the defendant(s) concerned, an agreement/nomination deed stood executed inter se co-plaintiff Uday Ram and co-plaintiff Sandeep Goswami, vis-a-vis nominees/assignees constituted thereunder, namely, one Madan Lal and one Roshan Lal, whereupon, in addition to other co-plaintiffs/co-decree holders namely one Ashok Kumar and one Gaurav, with theirs hence standing assigned the benefits of the compromise decree, rendered them alike one Ashok Kumar and one Gaurav to seek their impleadment as co-decree holders in the execution petition. A corollary of the aforesaid, is that the arraying of Madan Lal and Ashok Kumar as co-decree holders in the array of decree holders in execution petition No. 17 of 2012 when is in tandem with also holds concurrence with the explicit mandate recorded in the compromise decree in respect of the nominees/assignees of co-plaintiffs, assignment(s) whereof occurring under a valid instrument/deed executed inter se them vis-a-vis the relevant assignors/settlors thereof, thereupon, holding the apt leverage to enforce the compromise decree against the defendant(s)/Judgment debtors occurring in the memo of .

parties of the execution petition, hence not rendering the execution petition to be mis-constituted.

3. Upon notice of the execution petition, being served upon the judgment debtors, the latter proceeded to institute objections with respect to the execution of the compromise decree recorded by this Court in Civil Suit No. 39 of 2005. The essence of the objections reared by the JDS with respect to the executability of the compromise decree recorded by this Court is (a) of the decree holders not directly benefiting from the decree rather theirs disguising to be beneficiaries thereof, especially for bestowing the benefits of the decree upon JD No.2, who otherwise being a non agriculturist, was, unless, he obtained the requisite permission from the appropriate government for executing the sale deed with respect to the suit property or unless given his being under a validly recorded instrument/deed executed inter se the relevant co-plaintiffs/decree holders vis-a-vis him, hence, stood assigned the benefit(s) of the decree, thereupon barred to receive the benefit(s) of the compromise decree. (b) For overcoming or obviating the ill effects of the aforesaid omissions, JD No.2, namely Subhash Chand colluding with the decree holders for his hence .

unregistered testamentary disposition whereunder deceased testator Shiv Singh bestowed the suit property upon one Subhash Chand also given the validity of mutation(s) attested in sequel thereto, being subjudice, thereupon, the counsel for the judgment debtors contends, that with there also at this stage occurring a dispute with respect to Subhash Chand validly inheriting the estate of deceased sole defendant Shiv Singh, against whom a compromise decree stood pronounced, renders, any pronouncement upon JD No.2, namely, Subhash Chand Bhalla, for his executing the deed of conveyance with respect to the suit property vis-a-vis the decree holders, for hence, satisfactory execution of the compromise decree standing begotten, to be unbefitting besides insagacious, especially with Civil Suit borne in Annexure Ob-5, being decreed vis-a-vis the plaintiffs/judgment debtors concerned, would beget the ill fate of JD No.2 being now impermissibly directed to execute a deed of conveyance in respect of the suit property vis-a-vis the decree holders. However, the aforesaid ill consequence(s) as stand contemplated to occur, appear to stand engendered by surmises, preeminently when by way of abundant caution all the natural heirs of deceased sole .

4. Be that as it may, what is of more importance, is the espousal of the Jds, that all the co-decree holders are merely assaying to benefit JD No.2/Subhash Chand also the .

latter being the purported benamidar of the registered deed of conveyance, if any, as may be directed to be executed by this Court, for hence begetting satisfactory execution of the compromise decree, espousal(s) whereof prima facie may beget satiation from (a) admission occurring in the written statement, comprised in Annexure Ob-6, instituted by Subhash Chand to Civil Suit borne on Annexure Ob-5, admission whereof portrays, his defraying at the instance of deceased sole defendant Shiv Singh, money to the latter's brother also money to the latters' son(s), (b) admission occurring in Annexure Ob-7, Annexure whereof comprises a petition instituted before this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No. 5/2014 of 05.01.2014 registered at Police Station, Dharamapur, District Solan, H.P., constituting offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC, petition whereof stands supported by an affidavit sworn by one Subhash Chand, in respect of his, in sequel to a compromise decree being pronounced by this Court in Civil Suit No. 39 of 2005 on 24th July, 2006, hence depositing the sale consideration of Rs.28.50 lacs, on 10.10.2006, before this Court. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid admissions occurring in the apposite written statement, comprised in .