: 1 : chs-396-10=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 396 OF 2010 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 495 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION AWARD DATED 21.1.2008 Citifinancial Consumer Finance India Ltd. .. Decree Holder v/s. Mr. Suresh Ramdular Singh & Ors. .. Judgment Debtors And Jagdish Narayan Jung Bahadur Singh .. Applicant ......... Mr. S.M. Suryawanshi for the plaintiff/ decree holder Mr. Mehul Rathod i/b A.M. Sarogi for the applicant ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 17th JANUARY, 2011 P.C. : 1. The decree holder in this chamber summons had filed arbitration proceedings against the persons who are shown as Judgment Debtors in this chamber summons and decree came to be passed in terms of award dated 21.01.2008. Thereafter, the Judgment Creditor proceeded to execute the decree against Flat no.18, building no.3 more particularly set out in the prayer clause (a) of the chamber summons (hereinafter referred to as the said flat). That warrant of attachment was issued on 19th December, 2009. Learned Counsel on both sides : 2 : chs-396-10=.sxw could not tell the Court exact date on which the warrant of attachment has been levied. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant stated to the Court that the applicant has filed a suit in the City Civil Court against one Judgment Debtor Suresh R. Singh as also the present Judgment Creditor i.e. Citifinancial Consumer Finance India Ltd. being Suit No. 3905 of 2006 to protect the possession of the applicant. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant drew my attention to letter dated 26th December 1997 written by one of the Judgment Debtor Mr. Suresh R. Singh addressed to the Secretary of the Co-operative Society concerning the said flat stating that as per the family arrangement, the flat was given to Smt. Seema Jagdish Singh and her husband Jagdish Singh and thereafter they shall pay the societiey’s maintenance charges etc. and he has no objection of possession of the said flat in the name of Smt. Seema Jagdish Singh. The present applicant is Jagdish Singh who is named in the letter. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that on the account of this letter, it is clear that the suit flat does not stand in the name of Sureshchandra R Singh, one of the Judgment Debtor and therefore the levy of attachment on the said flat is incorrect. : 3 : chs-396-10=.sxw 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant therefore submitted that the attachment be raised. 5. Learned Counsel for the Judgment Creditor submitted that the word stated in the letter dated 26th December, 1997 which letter has been disputed by Mr. Suresh R. Singh in his written statement filed in the City Civil Court and said letter carries no sense and the applicant cannot be considered as the owner of the said flat. He submitted that no documentary evidence is produced to show that on account of family settlement and partition, the suit flat went to the share of the applicant. He submitted that the chamber summons is devoid of merits and it should be dismissed. I have considered the record and submissions advanced by both the sides. If the applicant intended to claim that he is the owner of the suit flat, he should have produced documentary evidence at least prima facie in support of the said contention. In this chamber summons, the only contention raised by the applicant is that on account of family settlement, said flat went to his share and he is the owner of the flat. In support of this claim, letter purported to have been addressed by the owner of the flat Mr. Suresh R. Singh dated 26th December, 1997 is relied upon. It is noticed that in the City Civil Court suit filed by the present applicant, this letter is disputed. Even if said dispute raised by the defendant is kept away, : 4 : chs-396-10=.sxw mere letter dated 26th December, 1997 by itself will not confer good title upon the present applicant. In order to claim that the said flat came to the lot of the present applicant on account of family settlement, it was necessary for the applicant to produce the document by which the family settlement was arrived at and flat came to the share of the applicant. In the absence of any material to show that the flat owned by the applicant at the time when warrant of attachment was levied, the claim of the applicant cannot be accepted. 6. It was also contended by the applicant that there are many documents which may show that he is in possession of the said flat. Mere possession of a particular person in regard to the said flat without ownership rights is of no consequences when the said flat is about to be sold in execution. To that extent, the claim is rejected. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I am inclined to dismiss the chamber summons. Hence following order is passed. ORDER (i) Chamber summons is dismissed. (ii) Applicant to pay to Judgment Creditor Rs.5,000/- by way of costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)