LAWS(P&H)-1993-6-20

AMARKULDIP SINGH Vs. BARU RAM

Decided On June 04, 1993
AMARKULDIP SINGH Appellant
V/S
BARU RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge I Class, Ludhiana. dated November 10 1989, directing the issuance of warrants of possession alongwith the Jamabandi to Assistant Collector I Grade with a direction to comply with the decree, and the order dated January 24, 1992, ordering issuance of warrants of possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 491, 492 and 493. executable through Tehsildar, Ludhiana.

(2.) UNDISPUTABLY, the petitioner-plaintiffs (hereinafter the plaintiffs) filed a suit for possession of land measuring 9 Bighas 11 Biswas comprised in Khewat No. 344, Khatauni No. 552, Khasra Nos. 491, 492 and 493, situate in village Malaud Rorian, tehsil and district Ludhiana, after demolishing the structures illegally raised by Dhani Ram, defendant No. 1 (since deceased), who is represented by his legal representatives, viz respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 15 in this petition. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge vide judgment and decree dated March' 15, 1969 The plaintiffs successfully assailed the judgment and decree of the trial Judge before the first appellate Court. A perusal of para 10 of the judgment dated April 27, 1970, rendered by the first appellate Court, reveals that on the disputed land there is a 'mandir' (temple) and the remaining land adjoins the same The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court was challenged by the defendants in R. S. A. No. 1138 of 1970 and the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and decree dated October 29, 1981. a perusal of the judgment of the leaned Single Judge reveals that the predecessor-in interest of respondents No. 1,2 and 15 had claimed ownership over the disputed land. His plea was negatived by observing thus : -

(3.) THE decree passed in a civil suit has to be interpreted in conjunction with the findings recorded in the body of the judgment. On the deputed land, there was a Shivala and shops had also been constructed on a part of the disputed land and some area was lying vacant.