Case Title – Ankit Mishra & Anr. Vs. Santosh Sharma & Ors.
Case Number – EX. F.A. 42/2023 & CM APP No. 52484/2023
Dated on – 6th May, 2024
Quorum – Justice C. Hari Shankar
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Ankit Mishra & Anr. Vs. Santosh Sharma & Ors., revolves around a property dispute concerning a temple dedicated to Lord Hanuman. In this case, the Appellant No. 1 is Ankit Mishra and Appellant No. 2 is Lord Hanuman, whereas, the Respondents are Santosh Sharma, her children, and Suraj Malik. The dispute in this case arose from a property at T-201, Jain Colony, Part-I, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, where a temple dedicated to Lord Hanuman is situated. A civil suit (CS 642/2019) was instituted by Suraj Malik against Santosh Sharma and her children seeking for the possession of the property. A settlement was reached on the 31st of October, 2022, having a decree of the suit in favour of Suraj Malik. Ankit Mishra, the Appellant No. 1, along with others, instituted another suit (CS 471/2023) seeking for the right to worship at the temple, which was duly dismissed on the 19th of April, 2023. Suraj Malik instituted an execution petition (EX 52/2023) seeking for the execution of the decree dated 10th of November, 2022. Ankit Mishra, the Appellant No. 1 and Lord Hanuman, the Appellant No. 2 instituted an objection to the execution, asserting fraud and suppression in obtaining the decree. The objection instituted by the Appellant No. 1 & 2 were dismissed by the Learned ADJ on the 25th of September,2023. The court held that the objections under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were summary in nature, and that the executing court cannot go against the decree. The court discovered that the Appellants had no Locus Standi and that their objection lacked merit, as they failed to provide the substantial evidences supporting their claims. The Respondents alleged collusion as well as delay in the institution of the objections, contesting the Bona Fides of the Appellants. The court observed the discrepancies in the claims of the Appellants, including the lack of evidence in support of the establishment of the temple in the year 1997.
ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the Appellants possess the Locus Standi to maintain the objections in the execution petition under the Order XLVII Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Whether the temple constructed on the suit property is lawful and valid, taking into consideration the ownership of the property and any permissions or agreements related to the constructions of the temple?
Whether the judgment and decree dated 10th of November,2022, obtained in the CS 642/2019, were acquired by fraud and suppression of material facts concerning the existence of the temple on the suit property?
Whether the execution of the decrees would obstruct the rights of the Appellant No.1 to worship at the temple and carry on rituals, and if so, whether such obstruction is legally justifiable?
Whether the obstruction raised by the Appellants are Bona Fide and supported by sufficient evidence?
Whether the deity Lord Hanuman, can be considered as a legal entity with rights and interests in the suit property?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the questions arising between the parties to the suit relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the Rejection of Plaint
Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property
Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser
Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the Review of the Judgments
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provided the Inherent powers to the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court
Section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows the court to award compensatory costs for frivolous or vexatious crimes
Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes that the property liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Learned ADJ has erroneously adjudicated the objections raised by the Appellants according to the provisions outlined in Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and cited the case of Shreenath Vs. Rajesh to support the contentions that a third party facing the dispossession from the suit properly due to execution of a decree acquired without pleading them has the right to object under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that in the original plaint in CS 642/2019, the fact that the temple is located on the suit property was deliberately concealed by the Respondents and that there was collusion between the Respondents in acquiring the judgment and decree dated 10th of November, 2022 and that this collusion threatened the rights of the Appellants.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case illuminated the dismissal of CS 471/2023 by the Learned ADJ under Order VII Rule 11, on the basis that no cause of action existed and that the dismissal was inappropriate and that the contentions made in para 9 of the objection petition gave rise to a triable issue that should have been taken into consideration on its merits under Order XII Rule 97.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the temple should be considered as a public property based on the contentions in the objection petition that the Appellants and the other residents of the locality used to offer prayers there and that the Respondent, Suraj Malik admitted regarding the occasional prayers by the villagers at the temple.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the land on which the public temple is located bestows in the deity and cited a legal precedent to contend that a deity is a minor whose rights can be protected by its “next friend” and the Appellant No.1, as a worshipper of the deity, is competent to sue on its behalf and protect its interest.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the issues raised in the objection petition are triable and deserved consideration, rather than being summarily dismissed as done in the impugned order.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that for the land on which the temple is located to vest in the deity, there must be an endowment of the property for religious purposes and that there are no such pleadings from the Appellants suggesting that the suit property was endowed for the religious purposes and that the suit property, owned by Suraj Malik, could not vest in the deity. A legal precedent was cited from Deoki Nandan Vs. Murlidhar to support their contention.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the application is tainted by malicious intentions and collusion between the Appellant No. 1 and Santosh Sharma and her Children (Respondents 1 to 4) and illuminated the fact that Manish Ahuja, Plaintiff No. 3 in CS 471/2023, was stated as a witness by Santosh Sharma in CS 642/2019.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the entire purpose of the attempt of the Appellants is to retain the possession of the suit property and frustrate the efforts of Suraj Malik to regain possession and cited legal precedents from Bal Bhagwan Vs. D.D.A and Durga P. Mishra Vs. G.N.C.T.D to support this contention.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Ankit Mishra & Anr. Vs. Santosh Sharma & Ors., identified a clear pattern of collusion amongst the Appellants (Santosh Sharma, Manish Ahuja and Ankit Mishra) to obstruct the execution of the decree and deprive the Respondent, Suraj Malik, of his rightful possession of the property. This collusion is evident from the strategic inclusion and exclusion of parties in the varied legal proceedings and the fabrication of disputes. The court, in this case, referred to various legal principles and precedents, stressing on the importance of distinguishing between private and public temples, the need for substantive evidence to support claims, and the consequences of abusing legal processes. The court examined whether the objections raise by the Appellants fall within the ambit of Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or other relevant provisions and that whether the objections could be maintainable under the Order XXI Rule 99 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The court, in this case, dismissed the appeal, concluding that the objections raised lacked merit and were a part of a concerted effort to delay and frustrate the execution of the decree. The court recognised the abuse of legal processes and the need for dissuading, the court orders the Appellant, Ankit Mishra, to pay compensatory costs of Rupees 1 Lakh to Suraj Malik, the Respondent. The court clarified that this decision aims to discourage similar malfeasance in the future and that the costs are solely payable by Ankit Mishra and not by Lord Hanuman, whom he apparently represented in the case.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
