"A Tenant’s Last Stand: Fighting Eviction Through Legal Loopholes"

 

Introduction

This case revolves around a long-standing property dispute in Purnia, Bihar, where Rajeshwari Devi, a tenant, attempted to resist an eviction order by purchasing a share of the disputed property. Her legal challenge was ultimately dismissed by the Patna High Court, reaffirming the principle that possession cannot be transferred through partial ownership unless formally partitioned. The case sheds light on property laws, eviction proceedings, and the rights of co-owners in Indian jurisprudence.

Background of the Case

The dispute began with Eviction Suit No. 18/2003, where the legal heirs of Late Ram Prasad Sah—his sons and widow—filed for the removal of Rajeshwari Devi from a commercial property in Bhatta Bazar, Purnia. The court ruled in their favor, leading to Execution Case No. 01/2011, aimed at enforcing the eviction decree.

However, during the execution proceedings, two daughters of Ram Prasad Sah transferred their share of the property to Rajeshwari Devi via a registered sale deed on 17.08.2019. Armed with this new ownership claim, Devi filed an objection under Order 21, Rule 97-101 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), arguing that she now had a legal stake in the property and could not be evicted.

The Munsif Court in Purnia dismissed her claim on 11.11.2019, stating that her purchase was invalid under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which prohibits transactions affecting a property under litigation. Rajeshwari Devi then appealed to the Patna High Court.

Key Legal Arguments

Arguments by Rajeshwari Devi (Petitioner)

1. New Ownership Rights – She acquired an independent right, title, and possession over the property through a valid sale deed from co-owners.

2. Ongoing Partition Suit – Since she had already filed a Title Partition Suit No. 161 of 2019, the eviction should be stayed until the court decides on property division.

3. Precedents Supporting Her Claim – She cited Supreme Court rulings in:

   • N.S.S. Narayana Sarma v. Goldstone Export (P) Ltd (2007)

   • Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd v. Rajiv Trust (1998)

   • These cases emphasized that objections regarding ownership should be addressed before eviction is enforced.

Arguments by Respondents (Landlords)

1. Legal Prohibition Under Lis Pendens – The sale deed was void under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, as the property was already subject to litigation.

2. Possession Requires Partition – Supreme Court judgments establish that purchasing a share in a jointly owned property does not automatically grant possession.

3. Settled Law Against Tenant’s Objections – They cited past rulings, including Gajara Vishnu Gosavi v. Prakash Nanasahed Kamble (2009), which held that a buyer of an undivided share cannot claim possession until partition is completed.

Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Patna High Court, presided by Justice Anil Kumar Sinha, dismissed Devi’s petition, making the following key observations:

1. Purchase of Undivided Shares Does Not Transfer Possession – Based on Sidheshwar Mukherjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh (1953) and Pramod Kumar Jaiswal v. Bibi Husn Bano (2005), the court ruled that a tenant-turned-buyer must first seek partition before claiming possession.

2. Execution Proceedings Cannot Be Halted – The eviction decree was valid, and Devi’s claim could not obstruct enforcement.

3. Order 21, Rule 97-101 CPC Does Not Apply – The rules governing resistance to execution apply only when a third party obstructs possession, not when the objector is the judgment debtor (the tenant herself).

Final Verdict

The court upheld the eviction order, ruling that Rajeshwari Devi’s purchase did not nullify the execution of the decree. She must first secure a partition decree before asserting possession rights.

Conclusion

This case highlights a crucial aspect of Indian property law: Purchasing a share in a disputed property does not grant immediate possession. It also reinforces the legal principle that execution of eviction orders cannot be obstructed by strategic property transfers. The ruling serves as a warning against using loopholes to delay enforcement and ensures that rightful owners can reclaim their property without undue delays in litigation.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NDQjNTUjMjAyMCMxI04=-Tq0wdzP--ak1--nps=