SURESH KUMAR Vs. NIRANJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 4.10.1999 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala whereby she dismissed the objections filed by Suresh Kumar objector in execution petition (Niranjan Singh v. Ajit Singh, Execution Petition No. 197/2.4.1994).

(2.) FACTS . Niranjan Singh filed suit for possession through redemption qua house No. 5919, which was decreed by Subordinate Judge 3rd Class, Patiala, on 2.3.1994. In the decree down up by the Court, House No. 5919 was shown bounded as follow :-

(3.) ONE Suresh Kumar put in objections against executing the said warrant of possession. It is alleged by him that he and his family are and prior to him, his mother and father had been residing in the foresaid house from the very beginning i.e. for the last about 45 years i.e. when they shifted from village Barbala, Tehsil Ambala to this house located at Lahori Gate, Patiala. His parents made the said house habitable. After the death of his father, he made improvements in this house. He made it pacca and got severage and water supply connection. It is further alleged that his possession and prior to him, the possession of his parents had been continuous, adverse and open. On 3.5.1994, Bailiff came to this house with warrant of possession in respect of house No. 5919. In the warrant, the bailiff was directed to deliver possession by breaking open the lock. Warrant of possession could not be executed because he and his family told the Bailiff that they were not party to any litigation in which this decree might have been passed and further this decree was not directed against the house they were occupying and the Bailiff should not take possession of the house they were occupying. Thereupon, the bailiff went back without executing that warrant of possession. It is further alleged in these objections that on going through the record of the court, it transpired that one Niranjan Singh had obtained decree for possession through redemption against one Ajit Singh. Alleged decree was the result of fraud. It would not be executed against the objector as he was not party to any such litigation. Decree holder deliberately concealed the fact that he (objector) and his family were residing in this house. It is further alleged that the Bailiff had made a wrong report that the house was lying locked. In fact, the house never remained locked as his family was in continuous occupation of this house. While filing suit in court, the description of the property given in the mortgage deed was departed from. House in occupation of the objector bears municipal No. B-27/180 Lahori Gate, Patiala. In nut-shell, the objection to the execution of this decree by Suresh Kumar was that this decree relates to house No. 5919 near Lahori Gate, Patiala, while the house in his occupation is house No. B-27/180 to which this redemption decree does not relate. Boundaries of the two houses differ.