RAJDIP SINGH Vs. JOGINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAJDIP Singh and another objectors have challenged in this revision order dated October 19, 1989, passed by Sub Judge I Class, Dasuya, dismissing the objections filed in the execution

(2.) SHER Singh owned about 489 Kanals and 11 Marlas of land in 1961. He died leaving a registered will dated December 27, 1955 in favour of Joginder Kaur and Jagdish Kaur, his grand-daughters. Sant Kaur and Balwant Kaur, his daughters got mutations sanctioned in their favours in respect of 1/2 share of land on the basis of another will dated May 3, 1960 Sant Kaur and Balwant Kaur filed a suit regarding remaining half share on the basis of the aforesaid will. The suit was dismissed holding will dated May 3, 1960 to be a forged one and upholding the will dated December 27, 1955. Inspire of that Sant Kaur and Balwant Kaur did not surrender possession of half share of the land which they had obtained. In the meantime, Joginder Kaur and Jagdish Kaur filed a suit for possession of half snare of land which remained with Sant Kaur and Balwant Kaur. The trial Court decreed the suit on November 29, 1973. However, on appeal the said decree was set aside. The High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 1722 of 1977, while allowing the same, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and restored the judgment and decree of the trial Court. In the meantime Balwsnt Kaur died. Gurbachan Kaur took up the matter in Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. It was finally dismissed on September 14, 1987. The decree-holders Joginder Kaur and Jagdish Kaur moved execution application for half share of the land against Sant Kaur and others including Gurbachan Kaur. It was during pendency of this execution application that Gajinder Singh and Rajdip Singh aforesaid filed objections inter alia claiming that they were terants of Sher Singh and that decree could not be executed against them as they were not parties thereto. They further took up the plea that the decree was merely decleratory and possession could cot be obtained in execution of the decree. These objections were dismissed as stated above.

(3.) THE decree passed in the case is not merely decleratory but a decree for possession was passed and hence objection regarding maintainability of the execution application obviously cannot be sustained.