JASPAL SINGH Vs. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is filed against an order that was passed on an objection raised by the petitioner to an execution of a decree that was obtained by the respondent on 15.3.1999 against one Raghuvir Singh. The objection was given by the petitioner contending that he was in possession of the property in his own right and he was not claiming the property under the judgment debtor. His further contention was that there was a confusion with reference to Khasra number in the Village as found in the decree and judgment and the decree holder is now trying to execute the decree which was different from the property which has been in the possession of the petitioner. The contention raised by the third party-objector was contested by the decree holder that there was no confusion with reference to the identity of the property since the property had been properly described within the four boundaries with reference to a building consisting of two rooms deori and courtyard. The property was described as follows:-

(2.) While Khasra number was given as 65/1 Min in the village Nangal, in para 5 of the judgment which was rendered by the Court ex-parte it had referred to the disputed of property as khasra No.92/1 in Village Jhoki Nangal. The decree holder sought to contend that the property in possession of the petitioner-objector has been admitted to be the property within the very same boundary. On his east was a property in the hands of Daulat Ram, on the west is the property held by Husan Lal, on the North is the property in possession of Jagiri Ram and on the South there was a road which form part of Khasra No.65/1. On the basis of the statement given by the petitioner-objector the Court found that a discrepancy with reference to Khasra number was irrelevant and the identity of the property had been clearly established. It is a well established principal of law that in case of discrepancy between khasra number and boundaries, the latter shall prevail. After rendering such a finding the execution Court proceeded to examine as to how the objector was making his claim but found that he had no contention to give except an assertion that he and his father had been in possession of the property for more than three decades. Finding that there was no basis for such an assertion the Execution Court proceeded to reject the objection raised by the petitioner and passed the impugned order.

(3.) Even before this Court learned counsel would only reiterate the discrepancy with regard to Khasra number and would not make any argument on how he has got title to the property. Learned counsel wants to contend that the suit had been decreed only against Raghuvir Singh and there was no attempt of the decree holder to show that the present objection caused by the petitioner was under the judgment debtor himself. Learned counsel will rely on the fact of that he is in possession of property and is not in a position to set trace his title through any document of title or any other legal title as inhering in him. The contention of the petitioner is liable for rejection for more than one reason. If the petitioner were to be claiming under Raghuvir Singh, there is hardly any scope for even undertaking an adjudication in the manner done by the executing Court. In such an event, the executing Court would be justified to even cause the arrest of such a person claiming under the judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 98(2) and enforce the decree. In Biswanath Poddar Vs. Archana Poddar and another, 2001 AIR(SC) 2849, the Supreme Court held if objection is raised by a sub tenant claiming under Judgment debtor (tenant) no fresh adjudication is necessary. An adjudication itself becomes relevant only in situations where an objector makes a claim not under the judgment debtor but independently. The procedure for such a third party objection is described under Order 21 Rule 101 and the order that is passed is under Order 21 Rule 97, Rule 99 shall be treated as if it were a decree under O 21 Rule 103 . The question that is determined under Rule 101 is all questions relating to right, title or interest in the property. If an objection is filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC then the Court determines the question on a full fledged enquiry. In Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Trust and another, 1998 AIR(SC) 1754 (1) the Supreme Court held that resistance or obstructions made even by a third party to the execution of decree can be gone into under O.21, Rule 97. Rules 97 to 106 in Order 21 are subsumed under the caption resistance to delivery of possession to decreeholder or purchaser. . Those rules are intended to deal with every sort of resistance or obstructions offered by any person. R.97 specifically provides that when the holder of a decree for possession of immovable property is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property such decree-holder has to make an application complaining of the resistance or obstruction. Sub-rule (2) makes it incumbent on the Court to proceed to adjudicate upon such complaint in accordance with the procedure laid down. It will be useful to reproduce Rule 101 on the nature of adjudication that is undertaken by the executing Court.