MUNSHI Vs. RAMJI LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is against the order dismissing an execution petition filed at the instance of one of the defendants who claimed that his 1/4th share in ancestral property was affirmed at the appellate Court when the appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court regarding the validity of a Will set up by the contesting defendant. The contest by the defendant was that there was no valid decree in favour of his co-defendant to work out the relief for possession which he was claiming by seeking for issue of a warrant of possession for 1/4th share. The Executing Court accepted the objection taken by the judgment debtor and dismissed the execution petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Executing Court had not looked into the entire judgment and the reasoning found therein, for, it was its duty as an Executing Court to give full effect to the rights of parties as determined and the decree itself must be construed by reading the judgment and giving full effect to it. The fact that the decree does not specifically provide for a right of recovery of possession ought not to be material.

(3.) Some more facts are necessary to understand what the judgment contained and whether it would have been possible for a defendant to plead for a warrant of possession against a codefendant. The suit had been filed by Mohan Lal son of Ganga Sahai along with 6 others claiming that the plaintiffs therein were entitled to recovery of possession or in the alternative for a joint possession of 1/4th share, admitting 3/4th share as belonging to collaterals of the same degree and setting out 3 different branches as the persons entitled to such shares. According to the plaintiffs, apart from their entitlement to the 1/4th share, one Bal Ram was entitled to 1/4th share, Arjun was entitled to another 1/4th and Lohrey was entitled to another 1/4th share. According to the plaintiffs, the contesting second defendant did not have any estate to the ancestral property. The second defendant entered a contest claiming the suit property as belonging to him under a bequest executed by one Surat Ram through a Will executed in his favour in a sound disposing state of mind on 20th August, 1963.