CHARAN DASS & ORS. vs MUKESH KUMAR

Judgment text excerpt

$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 17th July, 2025 + CM(M) 1255/2025, CM APPL. 42004/2025 & CM APPL. 42005/2025 CHARAN DASS & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Srivastava, Advocate. versus MUKESH KUMAR .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioners are aggrieved by dismissal of their objection petition which they had filed under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC. 2. Admittedly, a suit was filed by one Mr. Mukesh Kumar (respondent herein). 3. Mrs. Sunita (since deceased) was defendant No.4 in such suit. 4. Plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner of 50% of suit property i.e. House No. B-10, Gali No. 8, out of Khasra No. 898/192, measuring 70 sq yards situated at village Chandrawali, Shahadra, Delhi-110093. 5. It will be important to mention that, initially, the suit was filed against three defendants only and it was thereafter, amended and defendant No.4 to defendant No.7 were impleaded as parties on account of their claim that they had purchased some portion of “property under dispute”. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1255/2025 Page 1 of 3 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:19.07.2025 12:56:12 6. As already noticed, the suit has been decreed and pursuant to such decree, when the Execution Petition was filed, the abovesaid objections were submitted by LRs of the deceased defendant No.4. 7. In terms of the decree, there is a direction to the concerned defendants to hand over possession of 25 sq. yards portion of the house in question. 8. The mere claim of the objectors is to the effect that their predecessor-in-interest i.e. defendant No. 4-Mrs. Sunita had purchased 22.5 sq. yards of the land against consideration and since the decree is qua 25 sq. yards, it is not executable