Scribd
Upload
33 views2 pages

Kamala CRP Case Law

The Supreme Court of India addressed a property dispute involving Noorduddin and Dr. K.L. Anand concerning evacuee properties of Noorduddin's relatives who migrated to Pakistan. The Court ruled that when an application is made under Order 21, Rule 97, the court must adjudicate the rights and interests in the property, and such determination is conclusive between the parties. The Supreme Court emphasized that this determination should not be contested through a separate suit.

Uploaded by

Ashish Mishra
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
33 views2 pages

Kamala CRP Case Law

The Supreme Court of India addressed a property dispute involving Noorduddin and Dr. K.L. Anand concerning evacuee properties of Noorduddin's relatives who migrated to Pakistan. The Court ruled that when an application is made under Order 21, Rule 97, the court must adjudicate the rights and interests in the property, and such determination is conclusive between the parties. The Supreme Court emphasized that this determination should not be contested through a separate suit.

Uploaded by

Ashish Mishra
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Supreme Court of India

Noorduddin vs Dr. K.L. Anand 1995 SCC (1) 242


In Noorduddiri's case (1994 AIR SCW 5093) (supra), the dispute related to
evacuee property of the cousins of appellant's father and latter's brothers
Rehmatullah and Wazu who had migrated to Pakistan and their properties were
declared as evacuee properties.

The competent authority on 12-3-1956, had passed an order separating the


respective shares held by the evacuees, Munshi, Banda as well as father of the
appellant and two others. At an auction held on 14-4-1967 of the evacuee
properties, the respondent was the highest bidder and a sale certificate was
issued in his favour. The sale was challenged in the High Court by filing a
writ petition which was dismissed by a learned single Judge.
The order dismissing the writ petition was affirmed by a Division Bench in
Letters Patent Appeal. That order became final. In the meantime, the respondent
Dr. K. L. Anand filed a suit before the District Judge, Delhi against Rehmatullah
and Wazu, who were appellant's brothers, for possession of the properties. The
suit was dismissed.

However, on appeal before the High Court, a Division Bench of


that High Court decreed the suit for possession and the said decree became
final. The respondent thereafter sought execution of the aforesaid decree by
filing an execution application. The appellant resisted the execution and
delivery of possession by filing an application under Order 21, Rules 97 and 98
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
executing Court dismissed the appellant's application holding that since the
dispute was adjudicated upon by the High Court and therefore, the claim made
by the applicant-appellant was no longer tenable.

The appellant Noorduddin preferred a revision petition in


the High Court against the order of the executing Court dismissing
his application under Order 21, Rules 97 and 98 read with Section 151 of the
Code. The learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the
appellant's revision petition holding that the controversy was already concluded
in the writ petition in which the appellant's father was a party respondent and,
therefore, he could not make the objections. The matter did not rest here.

The appellant Noorduddin still carried appeal before the Supreme Court against
the order dismissing his revision petition. The Supreme Court held that when
an application has been made under Order 21, Rule 97, the Court is enjoined to
adjudicate upon the right, title and interest claimed in the property arising
between the parties to a proceeding or between the decree holder and the person
claiming independent right, title or interest in the immovable property and
an order in that behalf be made. It was further held that determination shall be
conclusive between the parties as if it was a decree subject to right of appeal
and not a matter to be agitated by a separate suit.

You might also like