No.09 of 1995 and T.Ex.
In pursuance of decree for specific performance of companytract passed in T.S. No.
Case No.10 of 1996, the respondent No.1 claimed that Anadi Dutt was number the son of Tarapada and it was Asis Kumar Dutt, who was the only son, owner and only legal heir of Late Tarapada.
The case of the respondent No.1 is that his father Late Iqbal Singh has trespassed into the premises No.15, Sahanagar Road and after his death in 1965, it was respondent No.1, who was in occupation and possession of the premises.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date 2019.07.29 132321 IST Reason Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are 2.1 One Tarapada Dutta owned premises No.15, Sahanagar Road, P.S. Tollygunge, Calcutta.
applications filed by respondent No.1, first appeal, FMA No.
An agreement for sale was executed by Anadi Dutt, who claimed to be son of Tarapada Dutta in favour of Rajvindar Singh in respect of 4 Kh.
It was further claimed that Shamsher Singh, Rajvindar Singh and Dayal Singh had fraudulently obtained decree in companylusion with Anadi Dutt and has evicted the respondent No.1 from the suit property.
of land and structures at premises No.15.
Trial companyrt held that respondent No.1 failed to prove that he has acquired title by way of adverse possession.
In the said two Misc.
No.10 of 1995 seeking delivery of possession of the suit property.
The appellant, who claimed to be in possession, obstructed the execution of the decree on the ground that they were the tenants in the shop from much before the execution of the mortgage.
Dayal Singh got his name mutated in Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
proceeding application, although, the respondent No.1 has impleaded Asis Kumar Dutt but he neither companytested the Misc.
Ad interim injunction in terms of prayer c above.
2.4 After lapse of 30 days, respondent No.1 filed two Misc.
Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and or any person on its behalf and agent, its men, for interfering with the plaintiffs possession and occupation of the suit premises fully described in Schedule A of the plaint in any manner whatsoever.
The decree directed the delivery of vacant possession of the mortgaged property to the applicant respondent No.
of land and structures of premises No.15.
On 21.01.1999, Dayal Singh also got a deed of companyveyance executed in his favour by Asis Kumar Dutt, alleged true legal heir of the Late Tarapada Dutta.
Against the order dated 10.08.2004 rejecting the Misc.
In the suit, following reliefs had been claimed by the respondent No.1, who was plaintiff in the suit A declaratory decree that the plaintiff has absolute possessory title in the suit premises No.15, Shahanagar Road, Calcutta under P.S. Tollygunge as fully described in the Schedule A of the plaint since the year 1965 to the exclusion of all other person or persons.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, this appeal has been filed.
He submitted that the High Court did number companymit any error in putting back the appellants into possession by allowing the appeal.
It was sufficient for the respondent No.1 to prove that he was in possession prior to his dis possession, which was sufficient for putting him back into possession.
2.6 The Executing Court by order dated 10.08.2004 rejected Misc.
Present is a case where the respondent No.1 alleged his dispossession by decree holders.
In the above case, respondent No.1 filed a suit for redemption of mortgage against respondent No.2, which was decreed.
The High Court by impugned judgment has set aside the order of the Executing Court dated 10.08.2004 disposing the application filed by respondent No.1 under Order XXI Rules 98, 99 and 100 with a direction that appellant respondent No.1 in this appeal should be put back into possession of the suit property.
10 of 1996 and 11 of 1996 against Rajvindar Singh, Shamsher Singh, Dayal Singh and Asis Dutt under Order XXI Rules 98, 99 and 100 CPC before the 6th Assistant District Judge, Alipore.
Case No.11 of 1996 filed by respondent No.1.
720 of 2005 was filed by respondent No.1 in the Calcutta High Court, which appeal has been allowed by Calcutta High Court by the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2009.
Decree holders filed two execution cases vide Execution number T.Ex.
In pursuance of decree of the Court, two separate Deeds of Conveyance were executed in favour of Dayal Singh Nominee of Rajvindar Singh and in favour of Shamsher Singh.
cases Nos.
2.2 The respondent had filed a T.S. No.211 of 1990 before the 3rd Munsif at Alipore praying for decree of declaration of his right with regard to premises in question on the basis of adverse possession.
50 of 1994 and T.S. No.51 of 1994, in execution proceedings, the decree holders were put in possession on 12.04.1996.
It was also claimed that a T.S. No.211 of 1990 was pending before 3rd Munsiff at Alipore filed by respondent No.1, in which he claimed right and title of the suit premises on the basis of adverse possession.
Case No.10 of 1996 and Misc.
In the said suit, the appellants were number parties.
and 6 Sft.
Another agreement for sale was entered by Anadi Dutt with Shamsher Singh in respect of 4 Kh.
2.3 Anadi Dutt having number executed the sale deed in pursuance of agreement for sale dated 07.05.1990, two title suits being Suit No.50 of 1994 and 51 of 1994 were filed by Rajvindar Singh and Shamsher Singh, which were decreed ex parte on 20.12.1994.
01.02.1977.
cases, respondent No.1 claimed that his father Sardar Iqbal Singh was the occupier and was running his business under the name and style as Public Transport Business in the suit premises and after his death, respondent No.1 has been running a business under the name and style of Ex Service United Coal Enterprise P Ltd. In the above said Misc.
application number challenged the title of Anadi Dutt, against whom an ex parte decree was passed.
Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 was substantially amended by Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1976, Act No.104 of 1976 w.e.f.
and 00 sft.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed against the Division Bench Judgment of Calcutta High Court in FMA No.720 of 2005, by which the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 has been allowed setting aside the order of Executing Court dated 10.08.2004 rejecting the application filed by respondent No.1 under Order XXI Rules 98, 99 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter referred to as CPC .
2.5 In Misc.
