ESA No.11 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-29.6.2010 Indu Devi ....Appellant Versus Shiv Kumar and others ...Respondents CORUM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Sanjay Mittal Advocate for the appellant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The epitome of the facts, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record, is that a civil suit titled as Ramu Ram vs. Kalyan Dass was decided, vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.1982, which became final, in which, it was agreed between the parties that no construction over the property in dispute would be raised by Kalyan Dass JD. Appellant Indu Devi and others have subsequently purchased the property in dispute from the legal heirs of Kalyan Dass, original judgment debtor, vide sale deed dated 26.4.2006. Thus, they are the assignee/transferees and stepped into the shoes of Kalyan Dass JD. After the purchase of the property, the assignees have started construction of the roof of the first floor, which necessitated the legal heirs of the original decree holder Ramu Ram, to file the execution petition, invoking the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 read with section 151 CPC. 2. In the wake of notice of the execution petition, the assignees of the original JD appeared and filed the objection petition/reply, inter-alia, pleading that as they are the bonafide purchasers, therefore, they have right ESA No.11 of 2010 2 to raise the construction and hence prayed for dismissal of the execution petition. 3. The executing Court dismissed the objections of the assignees of the original JD, vide impugned order dated 15.4.2009, the operative part of which, is as under:- “Having purchased the property from the heirs of Kalyandas, the JD No.1 to 3 are bound by the decree dated 12.10.1982. Hence, the objection raised by the JD No.1 to 3 stands dismissed. JD No.1 to 3 are directed to remove the construction raised on the disputed portion marked by ABCD in the site plan annexed with the decree dated 12.10.1982. Case is adjourned to 13.6.2009 for the compliance of the order.” 4. The appeal filed by the assignees of the original JD was also dismissed by the first Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 19.1.2010. 5. The appellant Indu Devi did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders and filed the present appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the record with his valuable help, to my mind, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons mentioned here-in-below. 7. The main argument of the learned counsel that since the appellant and others are bonafide purchasers, so, they have every right to raise construction, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. It is not a matter of dispute that the civil suit titled as Ramu Ram vs. Kalyan Dass was decided, vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.1982, in which, it was agreed between the parties that no construction over the property in dispute would be raised by Kalyan Dass and the decree had attained the finality. Appellant Indu Devi and others have subsequently purchased the ESA No.11 of 2010 3 property in dispute from the legal heirs of original JD Kalyan Dass, vide sale deed dated 26.4.2006. Thus, they are assignees/transferees of the same, have stepped into his (Kalyan Dass JD) shoes and are bound by the judgment and decree dated 12.10.1982 and hence they cannot raise any construction in violation of and cannot legally be permitted to frustrate the original decree. 8. The executing Court as well as the Ist Appellate Court, after taking into consideration and appreciating the entire material in the right perspective, has recorded the concurrent findings of fact that the appellant and others have subsequently purchased the disputed property from Shyam Lal son of Kalyan Dass JD and, as such, they have stepped into the shoes of Kalyan Dass JD, bound by and have no right to violate the original decree dated 12.10.1982. Such pure concurrent findings of fact cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this regard. 9. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. In the light of the reasons mentioned here-in-above, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 29.6.2010 Judge AS ESA No.11 of 2010 4