HARBANS SINGH Vs. DAULAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DAULAT Ram and his sons filed a suit for injunction claiming themselves to be owners in possession of the land in suit, details of which are given in the body of the plaint. It was alleged that Harbans Singh and Pala Ram are interfering in their peacefull possession and therefore, they be restrained from doing so. The suit was decreed in their favour. Against the decree of the trial Court, Harbans Singh and Pala Ram preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed. However, while disposing of the appeal, the first appellate Court observed that the revenue record brought on record indicate that Daulat Ram and Harbans Singh are joint owners. None of the parties to the litigation preferred a second appeal and thus, this order became final. Resultantly, the suit filed by Daulat Ram and his sons for injunction stood decreed. The plaintiffs filed an execution application under Order 21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, complaining that despite the decree in their favour, the judgment-debtors had taken possession of the land, comprising Khasra No. 5 of Rectangle No. 74 and (sic) of Rectangle No. 73, and thus, violated the decree. They also prayed that judgment-debtors be sent to civil prison and vacant possession of the land be ordered to be delivered to the decree holders. In addition to this, a prayer was made that costs of the suit and execution application be got recovered from the judgment-debtors by attachment and sale of their property. Notice of this application was given to the judgment-debtors, who appear and sought many adjournments to file reply to this application. No objections whatsoever were filed and after recording of evidence of the decree-holders, the judgment-debtors were found to have violated the decree for permanent injunction and they were ordered to be sent to civil prison. Warrants of possession were also issued. Thereafter, the judgment debtors filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the cancellation of warrants of arrest. The said application was dismissed on 23-1-1939. The judgment-debtors still resisted the execution of the decree and subsequently, a reference was made to the District Judge for providing police help. At that stage, another application was made by the judgment-debtors stating that they were declared as joint owners and therefore, they cannot be detained in civil prison and cannot be asked to deliver back the possession of the land in their possession. This application was dismissed. Appeal against this order was also dismissed. These orders are now being impugned by the judgment-debtors in the present revision petition.

(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in the revision petition. A decree was passed against the petitioners. They were bound by the terms of the decree. If any observation was given in the judgment that they are joint owners, the remedy with them was to seek possession of the property in accordance with law, rather to violate the decree and take possession forcibly. The executing Court on the basis of evidence found that they had violated the decree. In this view of the matter, the trial Court rightly ordered detention of the judgment-debtors in civil prison, in addition to issuing warrants of possession regarding the property which was forcibly occupied by the judgment-debtors. I am not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that under Order 21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment-debtors cannot be asked to deliver possession of the property. Under Order 21, Rule 32, of the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree can be enforced not only by detention of the judgment-debtors in civil prison, but also by attachment and sale of property of the judgment-debtors. Rule 32 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not prohibit the trial Court to issue directions to the judgment-debtors to deliver the land to the decree-holders, which they took in violation of the decree. The Court can always enforce its decree by giving such a direction or by issuing warrants of possession.

(3.) FACED with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners states that judgment-debtors are prepared to deliver possession of the parcel of land in their possession. I think that this prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners is quite fair and reasonable. In case, possession is delivered by the petitioner within two months to the decree holders, they shall not be detained in civil prison