Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ejectment execution in Santosh Singh vs Smt. Suman Shukla And Anr. on 19 September, 2024Matching Fragments
1. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887, the revision-petitioner has prayed for setting aside the judgment and an order dated 21.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge, P.C. Act, Court no. 3, Lucknow in Miscellaneous Case No. 39-C of 2013, which was registered upon an application under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 99 read with 101 of Civil Procedure Code filed in Execution Case No. 01 of 2013, which execution case was filed for execution of the ejectment decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court no. 13, Lucknow in SCC Suit No. 72 of 2010.
(Emphasis added)
15. When the suit filed by the revision-petitioner against the alleged tenant Santosh Shukla already stands decreed and the opposite party claims to have acquired ownership of the property in dispute through a sale-deed executed by its previous owner, the adjudication of the claim of the opposite party becomes incidental to adjudication of the plaintiff's claim for a decree for ejectment and its execution, which question can be decided by the Small Cause Court. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Small Cause Court has not acted without jurisdiction in deciding this incidental question as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Budhu Mal (Supra).
(Emphasis added)
20. Therefore, when the opposite party no. 1 claimed that the property in question had been purchased by her from its previous owner through a registered sale-deed, she had locus standi to claim that she had the right to resist her ejectment through execution proceedings instituted for execution of a decree which was passed in a suit in which she was not a party. Executing Court has rightly gone into the question in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. The order passed by the executing Court cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
22. In Nirmal Jeet Singh Hoon v. Irtiza Hussain, (2010) 14 SCC 564, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the scope and effect of Section 23 of the Act of 1887 by relying upon the precedent in the case of Budhu Mal (Supra) and reiterated that "the finding on the issue of title recorded by the Small Cause Court does not operate as res judicata and ultimately the issue of title has to be adjudicated upon by the competent civil court."
23. When we reconcile the ratio of law laid down in Noorduddin and Nirmal Jeet Singh Hoon (Supra), the correct position of law which emerges is that the Small Cause Courts has limited jurisdiction to go into the question of title incidentally for deciding the claim of the landlord for a decree of ejectment and execution thereof. However, the Small Cause Courts decide the cases in a summary manner and the finding returned by a Small Cause Court regarding title of the rival parties will not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit filed by the landlord in regular Civil Court claiming a decree on the basis of his title.