LACHMI DEVI Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Executing Court dated 18.3.1993, whereby the objections filed against the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 12.8.1985 ordering ejectment, have been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are indeed somewhat startling and betray the petitioner(s) in a most unbecoming manner, as they have managed to delay the execution proceedings for over twenty years. The property in question is situated in Hoshiarpur in the State of Punjab. One Parduman Singh, who was the owner of 10 marlas of land, sold approximately 6 marlas to Gurcharan Singh, vide registered sale-deed dated 12.8.1977. As the property had been partly built upon, it had been allocated Municipal House No. 385. Admittedly, Joginder Pal son of Lachmi Devi petitioner was a tenant in some portion of this property. Gurcharan Singh thereafter filed an application for ejectment against Joginder Pal, which was allowed on 12.8.1985. The appeal filed by Joginder Pal and Civil Revision No. 1243 of 1986 before this Court too were dismissed and the order of ejectment was maintained. It also appears that Lachhmi Devi and her three sons, which included Joginder Pal aforesaid, purchased the remaining 4 marlas of land from the attorney of Parduman Singh, namely, Ved Parkash vide sale-deed dated 2.5.1988. It is the case of the petitioner herein that this property was identified in the municipal record as 374-A. Gurcharan Singh having thus got an order of ejectment in his favour, filed an application for execution of the decree. Khushi Ram, Joginder pal's father filed an objection petition to this application, which was dismissed on 14.10.1986 with the observation that no house bearing No. 374-A existed in the entire Mohalla. Khushi Ram thereafter (in 1987) filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain Gurcharan Singh from dispossessing him. During the pendency of these proceedings, Khushi Ram died and his legal heirs (who are the present petitioners), were brought on record. In the execution proceedings, which were then still pending, Ram Lal another son of Khushi Ram made a statement in Court that he was willing to deliver possession to the decree-holders and that a Local Commissioner be appointed for this purpose. The Local Commissioner submitted his report on 18.3.1987 with the finding that Ram Lal was in fact obstructing the execution of the decree and there was no house bearing No. 374-A. In the meanwhile, the suit filed by Khushi Ram was dismissed for non-prosecution. It appears that a second objection petition was filed by Ram Lal on 27.4.1988 and this too was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.1988 and it was categorically held that the possession of the disputed property had not been handed over to the decree-holder and that there was no property bearing No. 374-A and that the entire property had been purchased by Gurcharan Singh vide sale-deed dated 12.8.1977. It was also observed that where the property was sold by boundaries and not by measurement, the description by boundaries would prevail in case of a dispute between the two. It is the admitted position that Civil Revision No. 3101 of 1988 filed against the order dated 24.11.1988 was dismissed (in limine) vide order dated 15.12.1988 and a Special Leave Petition No. 1795 of 1989 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court too was likewise dismissed in limine on 27.2.1989. In the meanwhile, a civil suit for permanent injunction was filed by petitioner Lachhmi Devi widow of Khushi Ram and mother of Joginder Pal claiming that they were owners of house No. 374-A which they had purchased through the attorney of Parduman Singh vide sale-deed dated 2.5.1988. An interim injunction was granted to the plaintiff-petitioner by the trial Court, but was subsequently vacated. The appeal and revision petition against the orders vacating the stay were also dismissed by the first Appellate Court and the High Court. Warrants of possession of the property in execution of the decree dated 12.8.1985 were thereafter issued by the Executing Court. A revision petition was again filed in this Court, which was dismissed on 11.7.1990 by Bahri, J. and it was observed that the execution could proceed only with respect to 6 marlas of land. Gurcharan Singh respondent herein approached the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 15557 of 1993 against this order which was dismissed with liberty to move the High Court to reconcile the order impugned with an earlier order passed by another Single Bench in Civil Revision No. 852 of 1993. In the meanwhile, the suit filed by Lachhmi Devi and others was dismissed in default on 6.9.1990. Yet another suit was filed by Lachhmi Devi and her sons and this was also dismissed on 10.11.1993 with some observations in favour of the petitioner, but ultimately on the ground that it was barred by the principles of res judicata in view of the order dated 24.11.1988. An appeal was thereafter filed by the petitioner and in the appeal they withdrew the suit and filed a fresh one seeking a declaration that as they were not parties in the ejectment application or in any other proceeding, they were not bound by the decision and that they were owners in possession of 4 marlas of land pursuant to the sale-deed 2.5.1988. It is the admitted position that the said suit is still pending in the trial court.

(3.) EIGHT issues were framed in this matter. They are reproduced below :-