Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. NEERAJ SHARMA
DISTRICT JUDGE-04(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
EX. No. 979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI …… Decree Holder
Versus
BHAGWATI AND ANR. ….. Judgment debtor
ORDER
1. Vide this order this court proposes to decide the objection
filed on behalf of objector namely, Babita, who is the one
of the legal representatives (LRs) of defendant/judgment
debtor namely Ms Bhagwati who has since deceased and
stood substituted by LRs in the suit itself. Pertinently, the
objector, Babita is stated to have been authorized to file the
present objections on behalf of all other LRs of the deceased
defendant/Judgement Debtor.
OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF LRs OF THE JUDGEMENT
DEBTOR
2. It is stated by the objectors that the present execution
petition filed by the Decree Holder is totally false and
frivolous as Decree Holder has no cause of action to file
the present execution as the Decree Holder is well aware
about the fact that legal heirs of Judgment Debtor have
already filed a civil suit which is pending before the court
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 1 of 21
-- 1 of 21 --
of Sh. Anil Antil, District Judge, therefore the present
execution petition is not maintainable as the issue regarding
the suit property is still pending before the court. It is further
stated that Judgment Debtors are legal heirs of deceased
Bhagwati and Decree Holder is the co-owner of the portion
of property no. 2/39 Roop Nagar, Delhi.
3. It is further stated that Judgment Debtor Nos. 2 to 4,
appointed the JD No. 1 Ms. Babita to file the present
objections on their behalf. It is further stated that the
Judgment Debtors are co-owners and the possession of the
portion of the property number 2/39 Roop Nagar, New
Delhi and the maternal grandfather of the Judgment Debtors
Nanwa Ram was the original owner of the said property
which is admeasuring 350 sq. yards and the same is still in
his name. It is also stated that Shri Nanwa Ram died in the
March, 1966. It is further stated that the Decree Holder
Laxmi Devi is daughter of deceased Somwati, which was
second wife of Shri Nanwa Ram. It is also stated that the
Somwati died on 20.01.1996.
4. It is further stated that after death of Smt. Bhagwati,
Judgment Debtors in the month of December, 2018, found
copy of Gift Deed pertaining to 50 sq. yards portions of said
property in the name of Smt. Bhagwati. It is further stated
that the Judgment Debtors are the owners of the 50 sq. yards
portion of the said property as the same was in name of their
mother Smt. Bhagwati. It is also stated that the Decree
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 2 of 21
-- 2 of 21 --
Holder Laxmi Devi filed a suit for partition wherein she did
not disclose the true facts and in particular the are of the
property No. 2/39, Roop Nagar, New Delhi and
accordingly, obtained a decree of partition from the court
of Shri Jitendra Kumar Mishra the then learned ADJ, Delhi,
buy concealing facts.
5. It is further asserted that the Judgment Debtors and their
family are in possession of the said property/suit property
which is built up to first floor and the articles of the
Judgment Debtors are lying there and the construction of
this property is very old. It is further stated that the suit was
for the property admeasuring 350 sq. yards which was in
name of Sh. Nanwa Ram, out of which the mother of
Judgment Debtors namely Smt. Bhagwati was exclusive
owner of 50 sq. yard portion which was gifted by her father
Shri Nanwa Ram to her. It is also stated that Judgment
Debtors taken the said objection but the same has not been
considered. It is also stated that in the month of July 2019,
Decree Holder with malafide intention started construction
over the portion of the said suit property and try to grab the
possession of the said property from the said Judgment
Debtors.
6. It is also stated that decree holder without obtaining any
permission and sanction from the concerned authorities
started the illegal construction over the said property and the
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 3 of 21
-- 3 of 21 --
Judgment Debtors and her daughters requested the
defendant to stop their illegal act then the Decree Holder
threatened the Judgment Debtors and her daughters with
dire consequences and said “we are owners of the property”
and further said “we will give the property to any third
person”. It is also stated that the Judgement Debtors and
Decree Holder are in joint possession of said property and
the Decree Holder was creating so many problems and
trying to dispossess the Judgment Debtors form the suit
property and also said that she will create third party interest
in the said property.
7. It has been emphasized that Judgment Debtors are owners
of 50 sq. yard portion and they are entitled for possession of
said portion after demarcating the same as the said portion
is illegally grab by the Decree Holder. It is further submitted
that after death of Shri Nanwa Ram, the Judgment Debtors
and Decree Holder become joint owners of the suit property
except the said 50 sq. yards area on which the Decree Holder
has no right, title and interest as the Judgment Debtors are
owner and in joint constructive possession of the said
property. It is further stated that on 12.09.2019, the
Judgment Debtors requested the Decree Holder to stop their
illegal act and she again threatened the judgment Debtors to
dire consequences. It is further stated that Decree Holder
have no care about the Judgement Debtor’s property and
they also occupied the portion of the said property. It is also
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 4 of 21
-- 4 of 21 --
stated that illegal act of the Decree holder is dangerous for
the human life as the foundation of the said property is very
old and plaster of the property would fall in any moment.
8. It is further stated that Decree Holder has not obtained any
permission from the MCD for the construction on the said
property and the police and MCD have closed their eyes and
mishappening could be occurred at any point of time due to
illegal construction as the foundation of the property is very
old. It is also stated that on complaint made by Judgement
Debtors to the Decree Holder regarding safety of the
property, the Decree Holder threatened the Judgment
Debtors that she will dispossess the Judgment Debtors from
the said property or will purchase the portion of the
Judgment Debtors on throw away price on the pretext that
they have good relations with police and politicians and
they can do anything and no body can stop them.
9. It is further contended by the objectors that decree holder
will and her family members, associates shall damage the
portion of the property of Judgment Debtors. It is further
contended that earlier when Judgment Debtors raised
objection on the illegal act of Decree Holder then the Decree
Holder and her associates threatened the Judgment Debtors
to face dire consequences. The Judgment Debtors claim to
have sent the notices about illegal constructions to the
concerned departments but they did not taken any action.
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 5 of 21
-- 5 of 21 --
10.Lastly, it is contended that the Decree Holder and her
associates have no concern with the law, no concern with
human being and they are doing illegal construction over
the said property. It is also stated that Decree Holder and her
associates are very powerful persons and taking the law in
their hands and that the Decree Holder and her associates
have no right to raise unauthorised construction over the
said property. It was also stated that there is no cause of
action arise to file the present execution petition.
11. Decree holder did not file any reply to the objections and
straight away argued the matter.
Analysis and decision
12. At the outset, it is noted that certified copies of judgment
and decree dated 04.10.2023, Local Commissioner’s Report
dated 26.04.2014, order dated 18.10.2016 and final
judgment and decree dated 18.10.2016 were placed on
record along with execution and objections. Perusal of the
record indicates that a suit for partition was filed by plaintiff
Smt. Laxmi Devi against the defendant Bhagwati for
partition of suit property bearing No. 2/39 Roop Nagar,
Delhi, which was registered as CS No. 704/2018 and titled
Smt. Laxmi Devi and another vs Smt. Bhagwati. Pursuant
to an application under Order 1 Rule 10 filed by Shri Dinesh
Chand, he was impleaded as plaintiff no. 2 in the said suit.
Vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.2013 passed by Sh.
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 6 of 21
-- 6 of 21 --
Jitender Kumar Mishra, the then Additional District
Judge-09, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi a
preliminary decree for partition by metes and bounds was
passed in the said suit in favour of plaintiff no. 1 (Smt.
Laxmi Devi) and defendant (Bhagwati) in respect of suit
property bearing no. 2/39, Roop Nagar, Delhi to the effect
that plaintiff no. 1 (Smt. Laxmi Devi) is entitled for 2/3rd
share in the suit property whereas the defendant (Smt.
Bhagwati ) is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit property
bearing no. 2/39 Roop Nagar, Delhi.
13.Defendant preferred Regular First Appeal before Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi against judgment and decree dated
04.10.2013, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi on 26.11.2013.
14. THhe Defendant also claims to have filed a SLP against the
said order dated 26.11.2023 which was dismissed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.05.2014.
Hence, the said preliminary decree dated 04.10.2013
attained finality.
15.In the meantime, vide order dated 17.01.2014, a local
commissioner was appointed to suggest the mode of
partition as per the preliminary decree dated 04.10.2013.
The Local Commissioner filed his report on 15.02.2014
wherein it was suggested that partition by metes and bounds
was best suited in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 7 of 21
-- 7 of 21 --
16.Accordingly, after due consideration of report of learned
Local Commissioner and after exploring the possibility of
the settlement between the parties, the Court vide its order
dated 26.03.2014 appointed Shri Devinder Pal Singh,
Advocate as Local Commissioner who was directed to visit
the suit property and to ensure the partition of the suit
property in accordance with the Preliminary Decree dated
04.10.2013. As directed by the Court, the Local
Commissioner was at liberty to take assistance of a
draftsman/architect according to his own wisdom and to
demarcate the portion on which the wall could be raised for
the purpose of partition and was also directed to hire
labour/contractor/mason etc to raise the wall for the heigh
of about 20 feet or whatever possible. Learned Local
Commissioner was also given liberty to form an
independent opinion on the spot as per circumstances and to
approach the concerned police station for any assistance. It
was also directed that in case one party did not pay the
expenses of the Local Commission then the other party
should bear the expenses which shall be recoverable from
the defaulter in accordance with the law. It was also directed
that a common wall shall be created and the Local
Commissioner shall form an opinion on the spot as to where
the wall had to be erected whether in the portion of the
plaintiff or the defendant or midway. It was also directed
that the width of the wall should be 5 inch or according to
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 8 of 21
-- 8 of 21 --
the circumstances or the opinion formed by Ld.
Commissioner on the spot. The learned Local
Commissioner was also given liberty to form an
independent opinion on the spot as per circumstances and to
approach the concerned police station for any assistance. It
was also directed that in case one party does not pay the
expenses of the Local Commission then the other party shall
bear the expenses which shall be recoverable from the
defaulter in accordance with the law. It was also directed
that a common wall shall be created and the Local
Commissioner shall form an opinion on the spot as to where
the wall had to be erected whether in the portion of the
plaintiff or the defendant or midway. It was also directed
that the width of the wall should be 5 inch or according to
the circumstances or the opinion formed by Ld.
Commissioner on the spot.
17.After executing the commission, Local Commissioner filed
his report on 26.04.2014 alongwith a site plan showing the
wall constructed to demarcate the shares of the Plaintiff No.
1 and Defendant in Red Colour as A1-A-B-C-D. In the said
report dated 26.04.2014 it was mentioned as follows:-
a. The suit property was an old building and in
occupation of many tenants in different parts. The
main problem was that there was a staircase and a
common toilet which was being used by the tenants
in common. The plaintiff paid the fees of the Local
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 9 of 21
-- 9 of 21 --
Commissioner, however, the defendant used to pay
their part of fees and their share of expenses.
b. The Ld. Local Commissioner appointed Shri Anil
Kumar Sharma as the draftsman who measured the
whole suit property and it was found to be ad-
measuring 51.6x71 sq. feet and accordingly the local
area of the suit property was 3656.5 sq. feet. In terms
of the preliminary decree 1/3rd share of the defendant
was calculated as 1218.83 sq. feet.
c. It was suggested by both the parties that 1/3rd area
should be demarcated in a rectangular box with its
front being half of the total toral frontal length in
order that both the parties would retain their
respective portion under their occupation without
disturbing the basis tenancy structure.
d. Local Commissioner engaged Sh. R.K. Builder as a
contractor for the purpose of construction of wall.
e. When the contractor took his labourers and mason to
the suit property, resistance was offered by Smt.
Omwati and Smt. Babita (objectors) on various
occasions. The draftsman Sh. Anil demarcated the
line at 25.8 x 47.5 so that the suit property could be
portioned in the ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd.
f. The constructed wall demarcated in the Local
Commissioner’s report from A to B to C at the height
of 5 feet and the width of the wall was kept as 9 inches
and width was taken a common to both the parties
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 10 of 21
-- 10 of 21 --
and therefore the wall was raised exactly in the
middle of the demarcated line keeping 4.5 inches on
the side of the plaintiff and 4.5 inches wall on the side
of the defendant.
g. The wall between point A and A-1 as shown in the
site plan is stated to be the width of 4.5 inches and in
the portion of the plaintiff since resistance was
offered by the defendants.
h. The wall between point A to B to C to D is 9 inches
thick and about 10 feet height and wall from
points A to A-1 is 4.5 inch thick and about 20 feet
height till the first floor and going through the
mezzanine floor.
i. The plaintiff paid the remaining fee (which was to be
paid by the defendant) vide a cheque of Rs. 25,000/-.
j. The wall was accordingly raised on the first floor and
the mezzanine floor to partition the property of the
parties and about 3 feet portion on the staircase was
left due to non completion of installation of the
staircase owing to resistance offered by the LRs of
the defendant who threatened to demolish the same.
18.In the Local Commissioner report it was stated that all the
bills were paid by the plaintiff and the defendant to refused
to pay anything at any stage.
19.Meanwhile, the defendant Bhagwati expired on 27.11.2015
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 11 of 21
-- 11 of 21 --
leaving behind her four daughters namely Smt. Omwati,
Smt. Shanti Devi, Ms. Babita and Smt. Dayawati, as her
only legal heirs/legal representatives who were impleaded
as LRs of defendant in the suit.
20.The defendant through LRs on 21.01.2016 filed objection to
both reports of Local Commissioner i.e. Report dated
13.12.2014 and Report dated 26.04.2014. The said
objection filed by legal heirs of defendant Bhagwati was
dismissed by Ms. Deepali Sharma, Additional Judge-14
Central Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide order dated
18.10.2016 with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by
the LRs of deceased Defendant with Prime Minister Relief
Fund. It was also directed that in so far as the fee of the
Local commissioner is concerned, the order dated
26.03.2014 mentioned that in case one party does not pay
the expenses of the local commission then the other party
shall bear the expenses which shall be recoverable from the
defaulter in accordance with law. It was also directed that
the Plaintiff no. 1 who paid the Defendant’s share of fees
and expenses is accordingly entitled to recover the same
from the LRs of decease defendant in accordance with law.
21.On the very same day, vide a separate judgment dated
18.10.2016. Ms. Deepali Sharma, Additional Judge-14
Central Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi passed a final judgment
and decree dated 18.10.2016. The relevant para of said
judgment dated 18.10.2016 is reproduced as under:-
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 12 of 21
-- 12 of 21 --
“17. In the light of above a final decree of partition is passed as
under:-
a.
Preliminary decree dated 04.10.2013 is hereby made
absolute.
b.
Suit property bearing no. 2/39, Roop Nagar, Delhi stands
partitioned amongst the parties in the ratio of 2/3rd and
1/3rd being the share of the Plaintiff no. 1 and Defendant
(represented through Legal Representatives)
respectively. The defendant ( through LRs) is the owner
of the area (25.66x47.5) sq. feet enclosed by the L
shaped wall as reflected in red colour in site plan filed
with the report of local commissioner and the plaintiff
no. 1 is the owner of the area outside the wall on the
northern and eastern side of the suit property as reflected
in the site plan Ex. X which shall form the part of decree.
18. The final decree of partition shall be engrossed on the
stamp paper to be submitted by the parties in terms of Article
45 of Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act on the market
value of the suit property on the date of the passing of the
final decree. The decree of partition duly engrossed on the
stamp paper shall be liable for registration in terms of
section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. Decree sheet be
prepared on stamp duty to be submitted by the parties within
fifteen days. “
22.The LRs of Defendant did not file any appeal against the
said judgment dated 18.10.2016 thereby passed final
judgement in the suit. Hence the same has attained finality.
23.The instant Execution Petition bearing No. 979 was filed on
03.07.2025 by the Plaintiff/Decree Holder against the LRs
of deceased Defendant/Judgment Debtor for recovery of Rs.
25,000/- which was paid by her to the Local
Commissioner’s fee towards the share of
defendant/judgment debtor in which the legal
representatives of the defendant/judgment debtor filed the
aforesaid objections qua encroachment of 50 sq. yards
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 13 of 21
-- 13 of 21 --
portions of the defendant/judgment debtor by the plaintiff
and illegal constructions by the plaintiff.
24. As far as regard the objections with respect to 50 sq. yard
portion of the defendant which was their exclusive share and
in their exclusive possession claimed to be possessed by the
decree holder cannot be accepted as the similar objection
was filed by the objector herein before the learned Trial
Court that the receiver has included the areas 50 sq. yards
while conducting the commission of partition of the suit
property, whereas the suit property was only 350 sq. yards
and the commission has conducted on the property of 400
sq. yards approximately, which include the 50 sq. yards
exclusive portion of the suit property. The said objection
was dismissed by Ms. Deepali Sharma, the then Ld. ADJ,
Delhi vide order date 18.10.2016 and the
objectors/defendant had not filed any appeal against the said
order which attains finality. Relevant portion of the said
order qua the allegation of objector in regard to their
exclusive portion of 50 sq. yards, are reproduced as under:
17. The contention that the Ld. Local Commissioner has also
taken into account the 50 sq. feet area which is in
exclusively possession of the defendant is misconceived
as there is no mention of such area being in exclusive
possession of the defendant at any stage of the suit. The
site plan filed by plaintiff alongwith the plaint and the
site plan filed by the Ld. Local Commissioner alongwith
his report mentioned that the property is bounded on four
sides as follows.
East: Property no. 2/40 Roop Nagar, Delhi.
West: Property no. 2/38, Roop Nagar, Delhi.
North: Road
South: Road.
18. The said boundaries were also reflected in judgment and
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 14 of 21
-- 14 of 21 --
decree dated 04.10.2013. Accordingly the contention of
the defendant that while measuring the suit property the
Ld. Local Commissioner has also included the portion of
50 sq. yards which was in exclusive use and occupation
of I entirely misconceived. The Ld. Local Commissioner
has measured the suit property as described in the plaint
being bounded as above. The Defendant has failed to
explain as to why there was no mention of 50 sq. feet of
land in exclusive possession of the defendant at an earlier
stage when site plan, boundaries, the specific address of
the suit property have always been on record.
25.The objectors did not the challenge the said finding in
appeal which attains finality and now after about nine years
from passing of said order dated 18.10.2016, the objector
now come to a new plea that they came into possession Gift
deed of their father Shri Nanwa Ram in favour of their
mother Bhagwati. It is relevant to mention here that the
defendant Bhagwati contested the aforesaid suit which was
filed in 1996 and till passing of final judgment dated
18.10.2016, she never pleaded nor placed on record that
alleged Gift Deed before the Trial Court. Since no appeal
has been filed against the final judgment dated 18.10.2016
whereby the learned Trial Court decreed the suit and
partitioned the suit property bearing no. 2/39, Roop Nagar,
Delhi amongst the in the ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd being the
share of the Plaintiff no. 1 and Defendant (represented
through Legal Representatives) respectively and declared
that the defendant (through LRs) is the owner of the area
(25.66x47.5) sq. feet enclosed by the L shaped wall as
reflected in red colour in site plan filed with the report of
local commissioner and the plaintiff no. 1 is the owner of
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 15 of 21
-- 15 of 21 --
the area outside the wall on the northern and eastern side of
the suit property as reflected in the site plan Ex. X which
shall form the part of decree.
26.Hence in view of aforesaid, the plea of the objectors that
the suit property was only 350 sq. yards, and the
plaintiff/decree holder acquired their 50 sq. yard portion
cannot be accepted and the same is rejected as the said
issue has already been attained finality in 2018 itself and
the same is now hit by principle of res judicata and
constructive res- judicata.
27. The objectors have also laid much stress on the issue of
pending suit to oppose the present execution. The JDs state
that they have instituted a civil suit which is pending before
the Court of Sh. Anil Antil, DJ, Delhi, and that the question
of their rights over the suit property is sub-judice therein.
On this basis, they urge that execution must be stayed.
28.The law on this point is well-settled and admits of no doubt.
A judgment debtor cannot create a bar to the execution of a
validly subsisting decree by instituting a fresh civil suit after
the decree has been passed. If such a practice were
permitted, the entire process of execution would be rendered
illusory and any judgment debtor could frustrate a decree
indefinitely by filing successive suits, and decrees of courts
would become meaningless pieces of paper. Courts have
consistently and emphatically deprecated such conduct as
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 16 of 21
-- 16 of 21 --
an abuse of the process of court.
29.It is equally settled that in the absence of a valid stay order
granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, a decree is
executable as of right. The JDs have not placed any stay
order on record. This execution petition must therefore
proceed.
30.Besides that there is a more fundamental and important legal
dimension to this issue which must be addressed. The JDs
by instituting their own civil suit have, in effect, chosen their
forum for agitating their rights over the suit property. All
questions of title, ownership, possession, and the alleged
exclusive ownership of 50 sq. yds. by virtue of the gift deed
i.e. which the JDs seek to raise as objections in the present
execution proceedings, are matters that the JDs have
themselves placed before the civil court in the suit pending
before the Court of Sh. Anil Antil, DJ, Delhi. The rights of
the JDs, if any, over the suit property will fall to be decided
in that suit and in that suit alone.
31.This leads to the inescapable legal consequence that the
executing court is neither the appropriate nor the competent
forum for deciding the title-related objections of the JDs.
The executing court's jurisdiction does not extend to
adjudicating upon questions of title that are already the
subject matter of a separately instituted civil suit between
the parties. If the JDs succeed in the civil suit before the
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 17 of 21
-- 17 of 21 --
Court of Sh. Anil Antil, DJ, it would be open to them to seek
appropriate relief at that stage. This court being executing
court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the civil court by
adjudicating upon the very questions of title that are pending
before it.
32.This analysis also fortifies the conclusion that the executing
court cannot alter the decree on any substantial aspect on
the basis of the pending civil suit. The foundation of the JDs'
title-related objections is the same as the foundation of their
civil suit i.e, the alleged gift deed of 50 sq. yds. and the
alleged suppression of facts in the original partition suit.
These are quintessentially questions of title and fact that
must be decided by the civil court. To permit the executing
court to adjudicate upon them would be to allow a collateral
attack on the decree under the guise of Section 47
objections, a course that is impermissible in law. The
executing court must confine its inquiry strictly to whether
the decree can be executed as it stands.
33.It follows that the pendency of the civil suit, far from being
a ground for staying execution, actually reinforces the
conclusion that the executing court is not the right forum for
the JDs' title claims. Those claims have a forum i.e. the civil
court.
34.A substantial portion of the objections is qua the allegations
of illegal construction by the DH over the JDs' share,
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 18 of 21
-- 18 of 21 --
encroachment, life-threatening statements made by the DH,
misuse of police and MCD influence, danger to human life
due to old construction, and so on. These allegations are
vehemently denied by the DH.
35.Leaving aside the question of the veracity of these
allegations, even if taken at their highest (which is not
conceded), they do not constitute valid legal objections to
the execution of the decree 'Questions of illegal construction
by the DH, threats made outside the court, police inaction,
and MCD violations are not questions relating to the
execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the present decree.
They are matters to be agitated in separate proceedings
before appropriate forums, whether by way of complaint to
the police, complaint to MCD, or a civil suit for
injunction/damages. They cannot be imported into
execution proceedings as objections.
36.The allegation that the DH has started illegal construction
on the JDs' share of the property If it is true that the DH has
encroached upon the JDs' allotted share, the appropriate
remedy is for the JDs to apply to the executing court for
enforcement of the partition decree in respect of their own
allotted area and not to oppose the execution of the decree
in respect of the DH's allotted area. The JDs cannot use an
alleged wrong by the DH as a shield to prevent the DH from
obtaining the benefit of her own decree
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 19 of 21
-- 19 of 21 --
37. Thus the JDs, having participated in litigation at every
stage, trial court, the Local Commissioner proceedings,
objections to Local Commissioner reports, and through their
LRs in the final decree proceedings, and having failed at
each stage, are now attempting to use the execution
proceedings as yet another forum to delay and obstruct the
DH's legitimate rights under the decree. This court
deprecates such conduct and finds the objections to be
frivolous, vexatious, and filed only with the intent to delay
execution.
38.In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court held as under :
(i) The present execution petition is fully maintainable.
The final decree dated 18.10.2016 is a valid,
subsisting, and executable decree.
(ii) The pendency of the civil suit instituted by the JDs
before the Court of Sh. Anil Antil, DJ, Delhi, does not
operate as a bar to the execution of the present decree.
No stay order has been obtained. On the contrary, the
institution of the civil suit by the JDs means that their
title claims, including the alleged gift deed of 50 sq.
yds., will fall to be decided by the civil court in that
suit, and not by this executing court. The executing
court cannot and must not alter the decree on any
substantial aspect on the basis of a pending civil suit
between the parties.
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 20 of 21
-- 20 of 21 --
(iii) All questions of title, ownership, and the alleged gift
deed of 50 sq. yds. are barred by res judicata and
constructive res judicata, having been conclusively
determined in the original suit and the First Appeal.
They cannot be agitated in execution proceedings.
(iv) The allegations of illegal construction, threats, and
misuse of influence do not constitute valid objections
in the execution proceedings.
39. Accordingly, the objections filed by the Judgment Debtors
are hereby dismissed.
Announced in open Court
on 06.05.2026
(NEERAJ SHARMA)
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Ex.No.979/25
SHRIMATI LAXMI DEVI Vs. BHAGWATI AND ANR.
Page 21 of 21
-- 21 of 21 --