JAGIR SINGH (DECEASED) TH. LRS Vs. KULWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A civil suit bearing case No.190 date of institution 13/3/1986 titled'Kulwant Singh and others vs. Jagir Singh (deceased) thr. LRs' was decided by the Court of learned Sub Judge, First Class, Batala through judgment and decree dtd. 5/10/1991. The learned trial Court decreed with costs the suit which was for specific performance of an agreement to sell dtd. 23/11/1981 of the property duly described and depicted in the suit as well as to put the plaintiff in full possession of the suit land in performance of this agreement subject to payment of balance sale consideration detailed therein. It is nobody's case nor put to challenge that the said judgment and decree since then was upheld by the first appellate Court on 15/2/1993 and subsequently upheld by this Court in regular second appeal vide its judgment dtd. 1/2/1994. The first execution of this judgment and decree was filed on 1/7/1995 and which was disposed off as satisfied vide order dtd. 11/7/2014. In spite of the sale deed having been executed, the decree-holders were not handed over possession of the land, subject matter of the suit, which lead to repeated filing of execution applications and ultimately third execution application was filed on 15/9/2014 under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC read with Sec. 151 CPC for issuance of warrants of possession of this very property. The Executing Court during the process of getting the decree executed was faced with certain objections filed by the judgment debtors primarily on the grounds that the execution application was barred by limitation being beyond 12 years and that now warrants of possession cannot be issued as it did not form part of the original judgment and decree.

(2.) Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners has cited'Jeet Singh vs. Gursewak Singh & others' 2015 AIR CC 3432; 'Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Daulat' 2002(1) RCR (Civil) 806; 'Antonysami vs. Arulanandam Pillai (D) by LRs' 2002(1) RCR (Civil) 826; and'Nathu Ram vs. Chhotu Singh' 2013(1) RCR (Civil) 517 to drive home the point that no Court can grant the relief of possession if it is not so claimed and therefore, unless the possession of immovable property is also specifically prayed for, the Court cannot grant it. Learned counsel is trying to reiterate the fact that if decree is silent, the relief of possession cannot be granted and further that under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, the time for filing of the execution ought to be from the date of passing of the decree and therefore by this analogy such execution of the judgment and decree cannot be put into operation.

(3.) The same is sought to be opposed by Mr. G.S. Sirphikhi, Advocate representing respondent No.1 who has cited'Deep Chand vs. Mohan Lal' 2000(3) RCR (Civil) 1;'G. Subramanyam (died) represented by his LRs G. Sugunamma & others vs. B. Raghunath (died) represented by his LRs B. Revathi & others' 2017(4) ALT 258; and'Manickam @ Thandapani and another vs. Vasantha' 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 395.