KASHMIR SINGH Vs. GURMAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dtd. 9/4/2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor No.1 for demarcation of the land in Execution No.EXE/71/2023 titled 'Gurmail Singh and Ors. vs. Kashmir Singh and Ors." has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the decree-holders (respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein) filed a suit for possession, which was decreed on 4/12/2014. In the suit possession of 08 Kanals out of Khasra No.32 Min South, Khata No.185/248 and 04 Marlas out of land measuring 14 Kanals 03 Marlas of Khasra No.32 Min. North, Khata No.185/247 was claimed. It was the case set up by the decree-holders that the judgment-debtor Nos.1 to 5 are in illegal possession of 08 Kanals of land out of Khasra No.32 Min. South, Khasra No.185/248. The judgment-debtor No.1 -Kashmir Singh - who is petitioner herein, is the only contesting party. The plea regarding defendant Nos.6 to 9 was not pressed and the decree-holders pressed their claim in the suit only qua defendant Nos.1 to 5 that too with regard to 08 Kanals of land as noticed above. The stand taken by the judgment-debtor Nos.1 to 5 was that they are in adverse possession of 08 Kanals of land out of Khasra No.32 Min. South, Khasra No.185/248. However, vide judgment and decree dtd. 4/12/2014 it was held that the judgment-debtor Nos.1 to 5 failed to prove their plea of adverse possession and it was held that the decree-holders were entitled to possession of 08 Kanals out of Khasra No.32 Min. South, Khasra No.185/248. It is to be noted that during the trial no dispute qua the identity of the suit property was ever raised. In the execution petition an application was filed only by judgment-debtor No.1 (petitioner herein) for demarcation of the land measuring 08 Kanals 04 Marlas. Reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order dtd. 9/4/2025 the said application has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-judgment debtor No.1 would contend that since the property is unpartitioned property, hence demarcation would be required and that the Executing Court has erred in dismissing the application.