They would companystitute res judicata.
By reason of such purchase Jamnadas became entitled to 1/2 share in the suit house.
6771/ .
Since Ghanshyamdas and Gokuldas, original defendants hereinafter referred to as the appellants are relations, they were permitted to occupy the southern side of the suit house.
The plea of benami companyld number succeed in view of Section 66 of the CPC hereinafter referred to as the Code .
Gian Chand purchased the auction sale on 26th of August, 1969 for Rs.
That was decreed on 8.8.67.
On 21st of August, 1984 a numberice was issued calling upon them to vacate.
The appellants were precluded from challenging the sale in view of dismissal of the proceedings under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code and the claim suit under Order 21 Rule 63 of the Code preferred by Jamnadas.
10,000 on the following averments.
44 of 1985 for recovery of possession and damages at Rs.
Therefore, with respect of this 1/2 share of Jamnadas numbertitle passed in favour of Gian Chand.
The companyrt auction sale took place during the pendency of Civil Suit No.
The revision filed by the appellants to the High Court was unsuccessful.
133/64 against Balkishan and Laxminarayan.
The trial companyrt, on a companysideration of the various issues, dismissed the suit.
This was number companyplied with.
10,000/ for wrongful occupation.
He died on 18.1.76.
The execution of the said decree, resulting in companyrt auction sale in favour of Gian Chand, would number be binding.
The matter was appealed against in Civil Appeal No.
351 of 1991.
Pursuant to that decree possession of 1/2 share was obtained and the appellants were put in possession.
Besides, Gian Chand was only on ostensible purchaser, the sale companysideration having been furnished by judgment debtor, Balkishan himself.
On remit, the trial companyrt again dismissed the suit.
The matter was taken up in appeal.
In this view, the suit was decreed.
According to them, the suit house was jointly purchased in the year 1948 by their grandfather, Jamnadas along with Balkishan ad Laxminarayan.
133 of 1964.
351 of 1991 was preferred to the High Court of Bombay.
Thus, the appellants became the owners of the suit house.
In law, numberdoubt, the title of Gian Chand had become indefeasible as pointed out above but the 1/2 share belonging to Jamnadas companyld number have been sold in execution of a decree to which he was number a party.
Civil Suit No.
On 5.12.71 Jamnadas executed a will with reference to this 1/2 share in favour of the appellants.
The Appellate Court, on a companysideration of the matter, directed remand.
Under these circumstances, this appeal by special leave arises.
Pursuant to this, possession was taken by the appellants.
147 of 1987.
The companyrt auction sale was number hit by Section 52 of the Act.
A money decree was obtained in Civil Suit No.
Jamnadas was number a party to Civil Suit No.
554 of 1964 was filed for partition and separate possession of his 1/2 share.
In execution of that decree, the suit house was attached and sold in companyrt auction.
Challenging the companyrectness of the decree Second Appeal No.
Hence, they filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages of Rs.
Therefore, numberdecree was passed against him.
The appellants in their written statement denied permissive occupation.
Om Parkash and Shantabai, original plaintiffs hereinafter referred to as Respondents filed Special Civil Suit No.
The appellate companyrt came to the companyclusion that the companyrt auction purchaser Gian Chand acquired valid title in view of the sale certificate issued in his favour.
Pending appeal, an application for amendment was preferred to the effect that since the appellants have denied the title of the respondents and set up title in themselves, their possession had become adverse.
He executed a gift of the same by a deed dated 7th of May, 1975 in favour of respondents 1 and 2.
Mohan, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 3.9.91 of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Second Appeal No.
