CHAMELI DEVI Vs. SURESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the land in dispute, which is situated in Khasra No. 1545 measuring 5 Kanals 0.6 Marla belonged to one Karta Kishan. Out of this land, he had sold 340 sq. yards to one Sham Lal on 24.2.1996, who in turn sold the same to five persons, namely, Jhunda 100 Sq. yards on 2.3.1966, Jag Ram 25 Sq. yards on 8.3.1966, Chatter Ram 150 Sq. yards on 5.3.1966, Pirthi and Laxmi 46 Sq. yards on 28.3.1966 and Lajpat Rai 46-2/9 Sq. yards on 28.3.1966. In all he sold 367-2/9 Sq. yards. Petitioner No. 1 being the widow of Karta Kishan along with his sons filed a civil suit against the alienees, namely, Sham Lal, Lajpat Rai, Laxmi, Pirthi, Jhunda, Jag Ram and Chaudhary Ram. These vendees in truth had further alienated the land to Suresh Chand and others, who were not impleaded in the suit despite the fact that in the written statement filed by Lajpat Rai, it had been specifically mentioned that the suit land had been sold to Dhanpat Rai and he had no interest in the same. On the property so purchased by him, Lajpat Rai had constructed three shops one of which he had sold to Nanak Chand on 22.12.1969, who in turn had sold the same to Suresh Chand, Bimal Parshad and Kiran Bala on 30.7.1974. Since the suit filed by Chameli Devi and others was decreed, she filed an execution application on 11.2.1980 for possession on 27-2/9 Sq. yards against Lajpat Rai and others. When the Field Kanungo, Patwari and others went to deliver the possession to the decree holders, it was reported that construction was in existence on the land, the possession of which was to be delivered to the decree holders. Another warrant of possession was issued and the Bailiff along with the Process Server upon going to the site reported that Suresh Chand and Bimal Parshad had resisted the delivery thereof and has also stated that the possession could not be delivered without the police help. It was at this stage that Suresh Chand had filed objections to the execution application.

(2.) IN the objection petition, it was submitted that the decree could not be executed against him as he along with his brother Bimal Parshad and Kiran Bala had purchased the shop in question from Nanak Chand son of Dhanpat Rai vide registered sale deed dated 30.7.1994 and that neither any one of the purchasers including the objector Suresh Chand nor the vendor Nanak Chand had been impleaded as a party. He also asserted that the decree in question was vague and unexecutable as in the same it was not mentioned as to which portion of Khasra No. 1545, was to be delivered to the decree holders. Moreover, it was submitted that the boundaries and the dimension of the land in dispute were not given in the plaint nor the same mentioned in the decree sheet and, therefore, the decree in question was null and void and was not binding on them.

(3.) FROM the stand taken by the parties, the following issues were framed :-