Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Arguments have been heard and record perused. Ld. Counsel for the objectors has confined his arguments to the aspect that in law the legal heirs of a tenant inherit the tenancy as per succession Law applicable upon the tenant (as per his religion). It has been contended that as per Section 19 (b) of Hindu Succession Act, if two or more heirs succeeds together to the property of an intestate they shall take the property as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. It has been contended by him that in view thereof the objectors have right in the property which cannot be taken away without affording them a hearing. It has been contended that admittedly in the decree under execution the objectors were not party and therefore any order passed is not binding on them as they were not party and they were not given right to defend themselves. It has been further contended that decree holder played fraud with the Court by not disclosing to the Court that after the demise of V.B. Sharma, the tenancy devolved upon the legal heirs comprising of the judgment debtor No.1 and objectors herein. Entire arguments on behalf of objectors boils downs to the submission that objectors too inherited the tenancy; that they were necessary party to suit for possession; that decree passed in their absence is not binding upon them; that objectors were in possession and were running their business.