LAWS(P&H)-2003-7-223

GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. LABH SINGH

Decided On July 09, 2003
GURCHARAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
LABH SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the defendant-JDs against the order dated 25.5.1995 passed by the executing Court directing the revenue authorities to enter the name of the plaintiff-decree-holder Labh Singh as co-owner in the suit land in accordance with decree dated 19.8.1991, passed by the trial Court.

(2.) The plaintiff, namely, Labh Singh had filed a suit for joint. possession of 1/5th share in respect of the suit land against his father Gurcharan Singh and his other brothers etc. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the extent that he was joint owner in the possession in suit land. However, his suit for joint possession in 1/5th share in the suit property was dismissed holding that his share would be determined at the time of alienation or partition. The appeal filed by the plaintiff and the cross-objections filed by the defendants were disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, holding that the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed and it is declared that the suit property is the joint Hindu Family and co-parcener property by the co-parceners, consisting of the plaintiff and his brothers and their father and that by birth the plaintiff had acquired interest in the said joint Hindu family co-parcener property i.e. the suit.

(3.) Subsequently, the plaintiff filed execution application seeking a direction for incorporating his name in the revenue record as a co-owner in the suit property. The said application was contested by the other side. After hearing both the sides, the learned executing Court directed the revenue officials to mention the name of the decree-holder as co-owner in the suit land, as per the decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved against this order of the executing Court, Gurcharan Singh and Bakshish Singh, defendants filed the present revision petition in this Court. The operation of the impugned order was stayed.