MANU/DE/4021/2018

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: 2018:DHC :6687, 2019(173)DRJ93

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Ex. F.A. 2/2018
Decided On: 11.10.2018
Abdul Mateen Vs. Rattan Singh
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Anand Yadav, Anita Tomar, Shoaib Haider, Kulsum
Haider and Navjot Kumar, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Debasis Mishra, Adv.
Case Note:
Civil - Objection - Appellant challenged order passed by court below whereby
court below dismissed objections filed by Appellant to execution sought by
Respondent - Whether there was any error in reasoning given by court below
for dismissal of objections of Appellant to execution - Held, perusal of
Agreement to Sell executed by executant in favour of Appellant shows that
same was executed by executant as owner of property and not in assignment
of Agreement to Sell executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of Executant -
Similarly, Power of Attorney was not for consideration and thereunder
executant, acting as attorney of Defendant no. 1, appointed Appellant as
attorney to did acts, deeds and things mentioned thereon - However,
Appellant thereunder was at best attorney of Defendant no. 1 and when
Defendant no. 1 could not have raised objections as have been raised,
Appellant as his attorney could not be permitted to did so - Therefore, court
was unable to see any merit in this appeal or any error in reasoning given by
court below for dismissal of objections of Appellant to execution - Appeal
dismissed. [29], [31], [38]
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
CM No. 32249/2018 (for restoration of the appeal dismissed in default on 11th July,
2018)
1. This order is in continuation of the earlier order dated 10th August, 2018.
2. Though there is no sufficient cause for restoration of the appeal dismissed in default
on 11th July, 2018 but still, in the interest of justice, subject to the appellant paying
costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent, the appeal is restored to its original position.
3 . Costs have been paid by the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff to the
respondent/defendant in person.

09-05-2024 (Page 1 of 8) www.manupatra.com Shrey Gupta

4. The application is allowed and disposed of.
EX.F.A. 2/2018
5. The counsel for the appellant has been heard and the records perused.
6. This Execution First Appeal under Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC) impugns the order [dated 22nd September, 2017 in Execution No.
23745/2016 of the Court of Additional District Judge-14, Central] of dismissal of
objections filed by the appellant / objector to the execution sought by the respondent /
decree holder.
7. The respondent/plaintiff/decree holder instituted a suit for specific performance of an
Agreement dated 25th April, 1988 of sale of 100 sq. yds. of Khasra No. 1 and TC 90,
Khata No. 193, Khewat No. 27 situated at Village Ghonda, Chohan Bangar, Delhi having
a total area of 200 sq. yds., against (i) Shyam Sunder Sharma; (ii) Om Prakash
Sharma; and, (iii) Mahabir Sharma. Only defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam
Sunder Sharma contested the suit by filing a written statement. The counsel for the
appellant / objector clarifies that the defendants no. 2&3 Om Prakash Sharma and
Mahabir Sharma had nothing to do with the property subject matter of the Agreement to
Sell and no relief was claimed against them and they were merely proper parties.
8 . The said suit, being Suit No. 167/2008 instituted on 16th October, 1998, was
allowed vide judgment and decree dated 22nd February, 2010 of the Court of the
Additional District Judge, Delhi and the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder
Sharma aforesaid was directed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff/decree holder, upon the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder
paying/depositing the balance sale consideration.
9 . The counsel for the appellant/objector on enquiry states that the defendant no.
1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma preferred First Appeal to this Court against
the aforesaid judgment and decree and which appeal was dismissed in default.
10. The respondent/plaintiff/decree holder applied for execution of the decree aforesaid
and in pursuance whereto a Sale Deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff/decree
holder was executed under the authority of the Executing Court and the
respondent/plaintiff/decree holder delivered vacant peaceful physical possession of the
property through process of the Court on 6th January, 2011.
11. The appellant, on 18th January, 2011 filed objections in the execution filed by the
respondent/plaintiff/decree holder, pleading (i) that the appellant/objector is the legal
owner of the property, having purchased the same from its previous owner Sarfaraj vide
General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell, Receipt etc. all dated 24th
November, 2004; (ii) that the appellant/objector, on such purchase, paid the entire
agreed sale consideration of Rs. 6,50,000/- and was also delivered vacant peaceful
physical possession of the property by said Sarfaraj; (iii) that the said Sarfaraj had
purchased the said property from the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder
Sharma vide various documents such as registered GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt,
Affidavits, registered Special Power of Attorney, registered Will etc. all dated 29th July,
1998; (iv) that the appellant/objector, since purchase on 24th November, 2004, was in
possession of the property and had been forcibly dispossessed therefrom in execution
sought by the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder of the judgment and decree dated
22nd February, 2010 aforesaid; (v) that the appellant/objector was not aware of the
suit, in execution of decree wherein he was dispossessed or of pendency of the

09-05-2024 (Page 2 of 8) www.manupatra.com Shrey Gupta

execution proceedings and was caught unaware; (vi) that the
respondent/plaintiff/decree holder obtained the decree, in execution of which the
appellant/objector was dispossessed, in collusion with the defendant no. 1/judgment
debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma because, while defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam
Sunder Sharma was contesting the suit, it was the appellant/objector who was in
possession of the property w.e.f. 24th November, 2004; (vii) that the collusion is also
evident from the fact that the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma
did not appear in execution proceedings; (viii) that the decree, without impleading the
appellant/objector, is bad in law; and, (ix) that the appellant/objector is the owner of
the property and could not have been dispossessed therefrom.
1 2 . Needless to state, the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder opposed the objections
aforesaid by filing a reply and the Executing Court, on 19th November, 2014 framed the
following issues:-
1 . Whether the objector Shri Abdul Matin was the owner/title holder of the
property in question to convey the title to his LRs, to affect the decree in
question? OP Objector.
2 . What is the effect, on the execution of the decree, in case the objector
succeeds in proving issue No. 1? OP Parties."
and relegated the appellant/objector and the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder to
evidence on the objections.
1 3 . The Executing Court, vide impugned order dated 22nd September, 2017 having
force of decree, has dismissed the objections preferred by the appellant/objector to the
execution, reasoning (i) that the appellant/objector had placed on record documents Ex.
OW1/1 to Ex. OW1/5 to prove title to the subject property; (ii) Ex. OW1/2 is an
unregistered GPA in favour of the appellant/objector; (iii) that Ex.OW1/1 and Ex.OW1/3
to OW1/5 are also unregistered documents; (iv) such unregistered documents could not
create right, title or interest in favour of the appellant/objector in immovable property;
(v) there was no force in the contention of the counsel for the appellant/objector, that
while the respondent/plaintiff/decree-holder only had receipts for payment of advance
sale consideration executed by the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder
Sharma in his favour, the appellant/objector had valid transfer documents of the subject
in his favour and was a bona fide purchaser in possession of the property, because the
appellant/objector had not and could not have purchased the property" in 2004, on the
basis of unregistered documents; on the contrary, the Agreement to Sell by the
defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff/decree holder and of which specific performance had been directed
and decreed was evident from documents dated 25th April, 1998 and 18th May, 1998
executed by the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma in favour of
the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder; moreover in execution of the decree, a
registered Sale Deed had been executed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff/decree
holder; (vi) that the appellant/objector had failed to prove a valid title in his favour;
(vii) that the appellant/objector had also admitted his predecessor having filed an
application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in the
appeal preferred by the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma
against the decree dated 22nd February, 2010; and, (viii) that the objections of the
appellant/objector thus had no merits.
14. The counsel for the appellant/objector has at the outset sought to argue that the

09-05-2024 (Page 3 of 8) www.manupatra.com Shrey Gupta

decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder and against the defendant no.
1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma, in execution of which the appellant/objector
has been dispossessed from the property, is bad in law.
15. I have however enquired from the counsel for the appellant/objector, as to how, in
law it is open to the appellant/objector to challenge a decree in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff/decree holder and against the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor
Shyam Sunder Sharma.
16. The counsel for the appellant/objector states that if the decree is a nullity, the same
could not have been executed.
17. Attention of the counsel for the appellant/objector has been drawn to Order XXI
Rule 35 of the CPC providing the mode of execution of a decree for immovable property
and which provides for removing from the property any person bound by decree and
who refuses to vacate the property". It has been enquired from the counsel for the
appellant/objector, whether not the scope of the appellant as objector in execution is
confined to showing that the appellant/objector is not bound by the decree and it is not
open to the appellant as objector in execution to challenge the decree on merits.
Attention of the counsel for the appellant/objector has also been invited to Balvant N.
Viswamitra Vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule MANU/SC/0625/2004 : (2004) 8 SCC 706; Rafique
Bibi Vs. Sayed Waliuddin MANU/SC/0634/2003 : (2004) 1 SCC 287; and Vijay Patel Vs.
Jugal Kishore 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10279 laying down as to on what grounds a decree
can be held to be a nullity in execution thereof and which does not permit the decree to
be challenged on grounds, as are sought to be urged, of the documents dated 25th
April, 1998 and 18th May, 1998 supra not evidencing an Agreement of Sale of
immovable property.
18. The counsel for the appellant/objector has then urged, that Order XXI Rule 102 of
the CPC makes the provisions of Order XXI Rule 98 and 100 invoking which objections
were filed not applicable only to transferee pendente lite and the appellant/objector is
not a transferee pendente lite. On asking, whether not the appellant/objector claims to
have purchased the property on 24th November, 2004, which was during the pendency
of the suit in execution of decree wherein the appellant/objector has been dispossessed
and which was instituted on 16th October, 1998, the counsel for the appellant/objector
states that the vendor of the appellant/objector namely Sarfaraj purchased the property
on 29th July, 1998 i.e. prior to the institution of the suit on 16th October, 1998.
19. However there is no Sale Deed from the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam
Sunder Sharma in favour of Sarfaraj and all that is argued to have been executed by the
defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma in favour of Sarfaraj, is also a
registered GPA and Special Power of Attorney along with unregistered Agreement to Sell
etc. Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries P. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana
MANU/SC/1021/2009 : (2009) 7 SCC 363 and MANU/SC/1222/2011 : (2012) 1 SCC 656
has held that the said documents do not amount to documents of transfer of title to the
property. It thus cannot be said that any title in the property stood
conveyed/transferred, within the meaning of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882, from the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma in favour of the
said Sarfaraj also, prior to the institution of the suit.
2 0 . The counsel for the appellant/objector has next contended that Sarfaraj was a
necessary party to the suit.
21. However it is not Sarfaraj who is before this Court but it is the appellant/objector,

09-05-2024 (Page 4 of 8) www.manupatra.com Shrey Gupta

documents in whose favour were admittedly executed during the pendency of the suit,
by Sarfaraj acting as attorney of defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder
Sharma, in favour of appellant/objector.
22. The counsel for the respondent/plaintiff/decree-holder at this stage interrupts to
state that Sarfaraj had filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC when the
matter was before this Court but which was dismissed on 14th August, 2002". The
counsel for the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder is however unable to point out the
page of the paper book containing the said order.
23. The counsel for the appellant/objector has drawn attention to page 546 of the paper
book, being a copy of IA No. 1619/1999 filed by the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor
Shyam Sunder Sharma in the suit, then pending before this court as Suit No.
2262/1998, for impleadment of Sarfaraj in the suit and to page 379 of the paper book,
being order dated 14th August, 2002 on IA No. 1619/1999 in Suit No. 2262/1998
dismissing the said application recording the submission of the counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff/decree holder that the submissions in the application were contrary
to the pleadings in the 'other Suit' and on account of default of appearance by the
counsel for the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma. On enquiry,
neither the counsel for the appellant/objector nor the counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff/decree holder are aware of the nature of the 'other Suit' but the
counsel for the appellant/objector states that it was a suit filed by the defendant no.
1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma for cancellation of the documents dated 25th
April, 1998 and 18th May, 1998 aforesaid.
24. I may notice, that the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma, in
IA No. 1619/1999 aforesaid, pleaded having sold the property to Sarfaraj on 29th July,
1998 and having delivered possession of the property to Sarfaraj and having not been
left with any right in the property. The respondent/plaintiff/decree holder, in his reply
to the said application at page 552 of the paper book pleaded that the defendant no.
1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma, in the plaint dated 5th August, 1998 in Suit
No. 1641/1998 had pleaded that he, on that date, was in possession of the property and
which possession could be verified by issuance of commission and sought to injunct the
respondent/plaintiff/decree holder from taking of possession of the property.
2 5 . The counsel for the appellant/objector then refers to Section 19 of the Specific
Relief Act. 1963 to contend that Sarfaraj and/or the appellant/objector were necessary
parties to the suit and the decree for specific performance passed in favour of
respondent/plaintiff/decree holder is nullity for this reason alone.
26. Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act inter alia provides that specific performance
of a contract may" be enforced against either party thereto as well as against any other
person claiming under him by a title arising subsequent to the contract, except a
transferee for value who had paid his money in good faith and without notice of the
original contract. The same does not require that the title arising subsequent to the
contract, of which specific performance is sought, should be during the pendency of the
suit for specific performance. Thus, Section 19(b) permits specific performance, also
against a person to whom the title in the property has passed from the defendant in the
suit, on a date subsequent to the contract of which specific performance is claimed,
even if it be prior to the date of the institution of the suit.
27. In the present case, no title has passed from the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor
Shyam Sunder Sharma in favour of Sarfaraj also, though Sarfaraj has not asserted his

09-05-2024 (Page 5 of 8) www.manupatra.com Shrey Gupta

rights in the Court. It was only Sarfaraj who could have asserted so and there is nothing
before the Court, on the basis whereof it can be said that Sarfaraj was not in the know
of the transaction of the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma with
the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder or that he acted in good faith. Else, the
acquisition of rights claimed by the appellant/objector is admittedly during the
pendency of the suit for specific performance in execution of decree wherein the
appellant / objector has been dispossessed. The appellant/objector has not filed the
objections as attorney of the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma
but filed the objections in his own right, claiming himself to be the owner of the
property and which the appellant/objector is not. I have in Sushil Kumar Bagga Vs.
Dewan Chander Batra (2014) 207 DLT 346 (SLP (c) No. 10178/2014 preferred where
against was dismissed vide order dated 8th May, 2014 and Review Petition (c) No.
1303/2014 preferred against the aforesaid order was also dismissed on 22nd July,
2014), referring to Sujata Sanzgiry Vs. Ankush R Naik MANU/MH/0901/2005 : AIR 2005
Bom 404 (SLP (c) No. 24958/2005 preferred where against was dismissed on 13th
December, 2005) observed that title arising subsequently referred to in Section 19(b) of
Specific Relief Act can be only by way of registered document and not by way of
Agreement to Sell.
28. Though the documents claimed to have been executed by Sarfaraj in favour of the
appellant/objector are not before this Court but the counsel for the appellant/objector
has handed over the same under cover of Index dated 3rd October, 2018 and states that
though they were filed in the Registry of this Court but were returned with objections.
The said documents are now taken on record.
2 9 . A perusal of the Agreement to Sell executed by Sarfaraj in favour of the
appellant/objector shows that the same was executed by Sarfaraj as owner of the
property and not in assignment of the Agreement to Sell executed by the defendant no.
1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma in favour of Sarfaraj. Similarly, the Power of
Attorney is not for consideration and thereunder Sarfaraj, acting as attorney of the
defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma, appointed the
appellant/objector as attorney to do the acts, deeds and things mentioned thereon.
However, the appellant/objector thereunder is at best the attorney of the defendant no.
1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma and when the defendant no. 1/judgment
debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma could not have raised the objections as have been raised,
the appellant/objector as his attorney cannot be permitted to do so.
3 0 . The counsel for the appellant/objector relies on Vimala Ammal vs. C Suseela
MANU/TN/0038/1991 : AIR 1991 Mad 209, holding that a subsequent purchaser is a
necessary party and a decree without impleading him cannot be executed by a prior
purchaser. However, a reading of the facts of the case shows that in that case there was
a sale deed in favour of the subsequent purchaser and which is not so in the present
case. The presence of the subsequent purchaser is necessary because, as far back as in
Lala Durga Prasad Vs. Lala Deep Chand MANU/SC/0008/1953 : AIR 1954 SC 75,
Supreme Court dealing with the diverse views of the High Courts then prevalent, held
that while allowing specific performance there is no need to annul or cancel the
document by which the defendant seller has transferred title to the subsequent
purchaser and the proper form of decree to be passed in such a situation is to direct the
subsequent purchaser to join the defendant seller in conveying title to the plaintiff in
specific performance of the agreement to sell. However, here, as aforesaid, no title has
passed from the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma to Sarfaraj or
to the appellant/objector and the presence of Sarfaraj and/or the appellant/objector
was/is not necessary for conveying title to the property in favour of the

09-05-2024 (Page 6 of 8) www.manupatra.com Shrey Gupta

respondent/plaintiff/decree holder in specific performance of the Agreement to Sell by
defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma in favour of
respondent/plaintiff/decree holder.
31. I am therefore unable to see any merit in this appeal or any error in the reasoning
given by the Executing Court for dismissal of the objections of the appellant to
execution.
32. The counsel for the appellant/objector was interrupting during the dictation and
was asked to wait. He now argues, (i) that the plea of nullity of a decree can be taken
at any time; reliance in this regard is placed on Ram Sworup Singh Vs. Mahabir Mahton
MANU/BH/0078/1960 : AIR 1960 Patna 235; (ii) that there was no averment in the
plaint in the suit for specific performance, which was decreed, that the
respondent/plaintiff/decree holder was always ready and willing to perform his part of
the Agreement; in the absence of the same, the decree for specific performance could
not have been passed; reliance in this regard is placed on Prem Raj Vs. D.L.F. Housing
& Construction Pvt. Ltd. 1968) 3 SCR 346 and Abdul Khader Rowther Vs. P.K. Sara Bai
MANU/SC/0006/1989 : AIR 1990 SC 682; (iii) that Suraj Lamp & Industries P. Ltd.
supra is only prospective; (iv) that on execution of the Agreement to Sell, rights under
Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act accrued; (v) that the documents by Sarfaraj
in favour of the appellant/objector were executed as per practice; and, (vi) that only
Sarfaraj could have shown that he was a bona fide purchaser for value and which could
not have been shown in any other proceeding unless he was impleaded as a party to the
suit.
33. No merit this found in any of the said contentions.
34. I have already hereinabove, referring to Balvant N Viswamitra, Yadav Sadashiv Mule
and Rafique Bibi supra held as to what constitutes a plea of nullity available in
execution of a decree. The pleas taken by the counsel for the appellant/ objector of, the
decree for specific performance having been passed in the absence of a plea in the
plaint of the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder being always ready and willing to
perform his part of agreement of which specific performance was claimed, does not
constitute such a plea of nullity of a decree available to defeat execution of the decree.
35. As far as the contention of prospectivity of Suraj Lamp & Industries P. Ltd. supra is
concerned, I have, in Bishan Chand Vs. Ved Prakash 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11408 giving
detailed reasons, rejected such a contention and need to reiterate the said reasons here
is not felt. Suffice it is to state that Suraj Lamp & Industries P. Ltd. supra merely
clarifies the law as it always stood and did not lay down any new law. It merely
overruled the dicta of the Division Bench of this Court in Asha M Jain Vs. Canara Bank
(2001) 94 DLT 841.
36. As far as the contention of rights under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 is concerned, the Transfer of Property Act, the Registration, Act, 1908 as well as
the Stamp Act, 1899 were amended with effect from 24th September 2001 and with
effect wherefrom the plea of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act is not available
unless the agreement to sell, in part performance of which the possession is claimed to
have been given, is registered. The Agreement to Sell dated 24th November, 2004
claimed to have been executed by Sarfaraj in favour of appellant/objector is not
registered. The plea of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is thus not available
to the appellant/objector. Though the Agreement to Sell in favour of Sarfaraj is of prior
thereto but Sarfaraj is not before the Court and Section 53A is/was otherwise also not

09-05-2024 (Page 7 of 8) www.manupatra.com Shrey Gupta

available to Sarfaraj because (a) for a plea of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act to
succeed, it is necessary to plead and prove that the transferee has performed or was
willing to perform his part of the contract and which was/is not the position here; (b)
on the contrary, the defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sundar Sharma as
aforesaid, in the plaint dated 5th August, 1998 in Suit No. 1641/1998 pleaded that he
was in possession of the property as on 5th August, 1998 i.e. after the Agreement to
Sell dated 29th July, 1998 in favour of Sarfaraj; (c) Section 53A only bars the transferor
i.e. defendant no. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma or any person claiming
under him i.e. the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder from enforcing against the
transferee i.e. Sarfaraj and/or any person claiming under him i.e. appellant/objector,
any right in respect of the property; however the said provision has to be read
harmoniously with the Specific Relief Act; the Agreement to Sell in favour of
respondent/plaintiff/decree holder, specific performance of which has been decreed, is
dated 25th April, 1998 and 18th May, 1998 i.e. prior to the Agreement to Sell dated
29th July, 1998 in favour of Sarfaraj; the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder is thus the
prior purchaser to Sarfaraj and enforcement of which right cannot be held to be barred
by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
37. I may, before parting with this judgment, also state that the appellant/objector has
besides the unregistered Agreement to Sell purportedly executed by the defendant no.
1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma in favour of Sarfaraj, filed a registered
Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed by defendant No. 1/judgment debtor
Shyam Sunder Sharma in favour of Sarfaraj but which power of attorney only authorises
Sarfaraj to take possession on the spot and to take electricity and water connections
from the concerned authorities with respect to the subject property. The same nowhere
authorised Sarfaraj to sell the property or do any other act with respect to the property.
No GPA with respect to the subject property executed by defendant No. 1/judgment
debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma in favour of Sarfaraj has been produced. The same also
belies the claims of defendant No. 1/judgment debtor Shyam Sunder Sharma having
intended to transfer or sell the property to Sarfaraj. Once, Sarfaraj did not have any
such rights, the question of appellant/objector acquiring such rights from Sarfaraj does
not arise.
38. Dismissed.
No costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

09-05-2024 (Page 8 of 8) www.manupatra.com Shrey Gupta