SAMEER SINGH AND ANR v. ABDUL RAB AND ORS. INSC 759

Sameer Singh & Anr v. Abdul Rab & Ors 14th October, 2014 Dipak Misra, V. Gopala Gowda

Facts Universal Construction Company obtained an ex parte decree in a Civil Suit in the High Court of Calcutta against Engineers Syndicate (India) Private Limited for Rs 2,15,289.28/-. In May the decree was assigned to Abdul Rab who transferred it to the Court of Sub Judge-1 Jamshedpur for execution via attachment and sale of Syndicate's immovable properties. The appellants filed an application under Rules 97, 99, 101, of the CPC and claimed that the property belonged to their father (Gopal Singh) via Abdul Rab as a settlement for a borrowed sum. They claimed to have possession till 2008, post which they were dispossessed by the Nazir. The High Court of Calcutta released the property from their attachment based on their father's title claim. The appellants sought restoration of possession and an injunction to prevent alteration of the status of the property.

Issues Whether the appellants had a legitimate and enforceable right, title and interest in the disputed territory based on the decree obtained? Whether respondents could be restrained from altering nature and character of property until court adjudicated appellants claims? Whether appellants as heirs of Gopal Singh, were entitled to be restored to possession of disputed property? Whether respondents acted in collusion and suppressed material facts to unlawfully attach and auction the property?

Holding The Court held that the appellants being legal heirs on Gopal Singh had established ownership, possession and title over the property on the basis on the decree of 1974. Since the High Court had recognized Gopal Singh's title, the Court found that the attachment, auction and subsequent sale of the property were invalid as Abdul Rab was not the owner of the property. Moreover, the Court noted that the respondents acted in collusion to suppress material facts to execute the decree against the property unlawfully and hence directed that the appellants be restored to possession of the disputed property and restrained the respondents from altering its nature and character.

Rationale The Court held that the appellants had clear title to the disputed property through the decree of 1974 and being the legal heirs of Gopal Singh, they inherited the property and had uninterrupted possession until dispossession in 2008. The High Court's acknowledgement of Gopal Singh's title and the release from attachment invalidates any claim of attachment under the execution proceedings initiated by Rab. The Court noted that the property did not belong to Rab at the time of the attachment and sale thus rendering the execution proceedings improper. Since the attachment and auction were invalid, the property could not be attached or sold to satisfy the decree against Rab. Additionally, The court found evidence of collusion between the respondents to suppress the prior release of the property and Gopal Singh's title. It was emphasized by the Court that there was a need to protect the appellants legal right as the rightful owners and possessors of the property.