Bhola Nath v. Monika

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: S.B. Sinha
H.S. Bedi
Judgment Date: 2007-09-24
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Bhola Nath

Respondents

Monika

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Prashant Kumar
• Joseph Pookkatt (Mis. AP & J Chambers)

Counsels for Respondents

• Brij Bhushan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Bhola Nath v. Monika arises from a cooperative society’s dispute over allotment of plots, referred to arbitration. In 1981, the arbitrator awarded Bhola Nath the allotment of plot No. 6. However, a sale deed for plot No. 66 was mistakenly executed in Bhola Nath’s favour. Separately, Monika (the respondent) was awarded one of three plots (66, 91, or 15); since plots 91 and 15 were unavailable, she sought execution of the award for plot 66. The sole question before the executing authority was whether the respondent’s execution petition was maintainable in light of Bhola Nath’s sale deed of plot 66. The court found that the award had directed only plot No. 6 to Bhola Nath and that the sale deed for plot No. 66 was a mistake. The remedy, the court held, was to take appropriate proceedings to give effect to the arbitrator’s award rather than to rely on the erroneous deed. Thus, the respondent’s execution petition could not prevail, and the appeal lacked merit. The appellate court dismissed the appeal with no costs, underscoring that the correct course is to implement the award and rectify the mistaken deed rather than override it through execution.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Doctrine of lis pendens

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants argued that the execution petition by Monika is not maintainable due to the doctrine of lis pendens, since the sale deed of plot No. 66 in Bhola Nath’s favour was executed by mistake. They contended that the arbitrator directed Bhola Nath to receive plot No. 6, and the sale of plot No. 66 arose from a mistake, so the remedy is to give effect to the award rather than allow enforcement of the erroneous deed.

Contentions of Respondents

Monika contended that the execution petition is maintainable and that she is entitled to obtain the plot in accordance with the arbitration award; she argued that the award allowed allotment of plot 66 (among 66, 91, or 15) and that the sale deed in Bhola Nath’s favour should be superseded by the execution of the award; the dispute centers on enforcing the award notwithstanding the mistaken deed.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_-t_ ~- A # BHOLANATII ## v. _·-If-_ # MONIKA (D) THROUGH LRS. ANDANR. ## SEPTEMBER 24,_ 2007 B ## [S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.J ## _Arbitration:_ · _Cooperative Society-Allotment of plots by-Dispute-Matter_ c _referred to arbitration-Arbitrator directing allotment of plot No. 6 to petitioner-By mistake, sale deed of plot No. 66 executed in favour of petitioner-In another dispute, plot No. 66 allotted by arbitrator_ · _to respondent-Execution application by respondent for execution of sale deed in respect of plot No. 66 in her favour-Petitioner challenging_ D _maintainability of execution application filed by respondent on plea oflis_ pendens-Held: _Plot No. 6 only was directed to be allotted to petitioner and sale deed in respect of plot No. 66 was executed by mistake-Petitioner cannot take advantage thereof-Remedy for petitioner would be to take appropriate proceedings to give effect to_ E _award passed by arbitrator in his favour-Execution of awardDoctrine_ oflis pe~dens. _).._ CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4538 of 2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.04.2007 of the High Court F of Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 487 of 1987. Prashant Kumar and Joseph Pookkatt (for Mis. AP & J Chambers) for the Appellant. Brij Bhushan for the Respondents. > G The following Order of the Court was delivered: ## ORDER _>--_ Leave granted. The dispute between the parties relates to plot No. 66, admeasuring 292 H BHOLA NATH v. MONIKA 293 _ >· _ ~ 45 ft. x 80 ft. total area 3600 sq.ft situated at Jawahar Nagar Extension A Colony, Mauja Bhadeni Pargana Dehat, City Varanasi. As a dispute arose between petitioner and a cooperative society, the same was referred to arbitration. In the year 1981 an award was passed in favour of the petitioner. The arbitrator directed allotment of plot No. 6 in his favour. However, treating the said plot to be 66 (instead of plot No. 6) a sale B deed was executed by the cooperative society in favour petitioner for plot No. 66. Another dispute arose between the respondent and the cooperative society in relation to award of a plot in her favour. In the award made in favour of the respondent, it was directed that any of the 3 plots namely, plot Nos. 66, 91 or 15 may be allotted in her favour. As C the plot Nos. 91 and 15 were not available having been allotted to other members of the cooperative society, the respondent filed an execution application for allotment of the said plot No. 66 and execution of sale deed in her favour. In relation thereto, an objection filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed. The revision petition filed thereagainst has also D been dismissed. The sole question which arose for consideration before the executing authority was as to whether in view of the fact that a deed of sale has been executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said plot No. 66, the execution petition filed at the instance of the respondent was · E maintainable. Petitioner sought to rely upon the docrtine of _lis pendens_ to contend that the said execution application was not maintainable. Before us copies of the original awards have been produced for the perusal. It appears F that plot No. 6 was only directed to be allotted in favour of the petitioner. If in execution of the said award a sale deed in respect of plot No. 66 has been executed, the same was evidently done by mistake and, thus, the petitioner cannot take any advantage thereof The remedy of the petitioner would, therefore, be to initiate an appropriate proceeding for giving effect to the award passed by the Arbitrator in his favour. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed. RP.