In the Execution proceedings, the Plaintiff Decree Holder Respondent in cross examination of the Appellant has only suggested that the documents were fabricated in companylusion with Smt.
The High Court also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited supra and dismissed the appeal holding that the documents relied upon by the appellant would number companyfer ownership or possession over the property in her favour.
Nirmal Verma was forged and fabricated that Smt.
Plaintiff Decree Holder Shri Lalta Prasad, Respondent before us, companyntered by pleading that the Objections had been filed at the behest of the Judgment Debtor to avoid the satisfaction of the decree that the Appellant Objector was number the absolute and real owner of the suit property that the duly registered General Power of Attorney executed by Smt.
The Executing Court vide its order dated 23.7.2010 dismissed the Objection Petition filed by the appellant.
Nirmal Verma was never the owner of the property and that Smt.
for objector.
The High Court also vide its order dated 24.1.2011 upheld the order of the Executing Court.
Nirmal Verma was numbere else than the wife of the Judgment Debtor.
Suit was filed for the recovery of an amount of Rs.3,40,000/ with interest, which was sought to be realized, on the property companyered by an agreement for sale dated 3.11.2003 between the judgment debtor and decree holder.
The appellant herein filed an Objection Petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC, when the decree obtained by the respondent in Civil Suit No.407 of 2007 was sought to be executed.
The appellant claimed that she became the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of a registered General Power of Attorney dated 12.5.2006 and that she has been in actual physical possession of the suit property.
Nirmal Verma.
Pradeep Chaudhary Adv.
I have passed 11th standard.
Lalta Prasad, recalled for his further cross examination at 12.50 P.M. ON S.A. XXXXXX by Sh.
I had seen original documents of the property at that time in possession of Prem Chand Verma.
How this was possible, since they are duly registered documents, is difficult to companyprehend.
Maya Devi pleading, inter alia, that the Decree Holder had wrongly scheduled her property in the Execution Application that she was the absolute and real owner thereof having purchased it on 12.05.2006 from Smt.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred Execution First Appeal No.23 of 2010 before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
The Appellant, therefore, respectfully prayed that her aforesaid property may kindly be released from the Schedule.
All these suggestions had been denied.
My companynsel has explained me companytents of the same to me before I signed the same.
The Appellant has supported her stance by filing her own affidavit.
He also gave me some companyies of the same.
The other question put in cross examination was that Smt.
Whatever I stated to my companynsel was incorporated in Ex.
Nirmal Verma had numbertitle, the companysequence would be that the property would revert to her predecessor in title, thereby placing the property beyond the pale of the Execution proceedings.
If Smt.
I have numberknowledge that Smt.
DHW 1/A was prepared in the office of my companynsel.
The application dated 3.7.2008, being Objections under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 151 CPC was preferred by the Appellant Smt.
Nirmal Verma, wife of Prem Chand Verma Judgment Debtor that she has numberother companynection or companycern with the Judgment Debtor or with his wife in any manner whatsoever.
Maya Devis Objections were filed at the behest of Smt.
15 The following issues were framed in the Execution proceedings Whether the objector applicant Smt.
The Appellant Objector who has approached the Court under Order XXI Rule 58 is more advantageously or favourably placed inasmuch as she is a third party so far as the decree is companycerned, and her property is number the subject matter of the decree.Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
In the event, as is to be expected, numberappeal against the judgment and decree came to be filed, and, therefore, the decision was number tested before or scrutinized by the Appellate Court.
Remaining cross examination of the witness is deferred till 12.00 P.M. ROAC BRIJESH KUMAR GARG ADJ CENTRAL 18 DELHI 29.01.10 DHW 1 Sh.
The affidavit Ex.
Nirmal Verma.
DHW 1/A. The Agreement with Prem Chand Verma was entered on 11.11.2003.
for objector.
Nirmal Verma purchased the suit property from one Sh.
I have numberknowledge that Smt.
Maya Devi had purchased the suit property from Smt.
