During the execution proceedings of the recovery of the money decree in Suit No.377/66, the appellant filed objections under Section 47 CPC seeking to set aside the sale, which was dismissed and became final.
It is seen that the appellant though initially had his right as a tenant, by virtue of his purchase under the pre emption decree, his tenancy rights stood merged into his title as an owner deriving right, title and interest from Smt.
The companytroversy relates to land, measuring 48 Kanals 7 marlas situated in Khewat Nos.31 and 32 in Faridpur village.
Ajudhia on January 30, 1966 and he laid the suit for specific performance and the suit was decreed on October 18, 1968 and in execution thereof he had a sale deed in his favour which was registered on October 18, 1968.
She admittedly suffered money decree in Suit No.377/66 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 against her.
Since this property was subject of attachment pending suit, the decree holders in Suit No.377/66 became entitled to proceed against the property which was rightly sold in execution.
As stated earlier, his tenancy rights stood merged in his title after the pre emption decree and he became the owner.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree dated April 11, 1979 of the High Court of Punjab Haryana passed in RSA No.532/79, dismissing the second appeal in limine.
In execution of the decree, the said properties were brought to sale in which Kuldip Singh, the 11th respondent, became the auction purchaser on February 15, 1976 for a sum of Rs.26,500/ .
Ajudhia for pre emption under the Punjab Preemption Act, 1918 claiming preferential right as a tenant and had a decree on May 26, 1970.
The suit was decreed on March 20, 1968.
He sought to set aside the decree by filing objections under Section 47 and the same was dismissed.
Pending suit, the plaintiff, got an order of attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5, CPC by which the lands were encumbered for the realisation of the decree, if ultimately passed.
In the meanwhile, one Prabhu Dayal entered into an agreement of sale of the said land with Smt.
Thereafter, the appellant filed Suit No.77/1976 for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction.
The sale was companyfirmed on March 21, 1978.
Thus he acquired the title to the property through the decree holder.
Ajudhia, the 9th respondent.
Ajudhia thus stood transferred to the 11th respondent through companyrt decree.
Ajudhia, who was a judgment debtor in money decree.
The land originally belonged to Smt.
The appellant filed a suit against Prabhu Dayal and Smt.
Therein, the 11th respondent had become the auction purchaser and the sale was companyfirmed in his favour.
He derived his title from Smt.
The title of Smt.
The appellant claimed to be a tenant under her.
