LAWS(P&H)-1965-7-33

MUKAND SINGH AND ORS. Vs. SHADI AND ORS.

Decided On July 13, 1965
Mukand Singh And Ors. Appellant
V/S
Shadi And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the appellate order of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dated 1st October, 1963, whereby he affirmed the finding of the executing Court that the execution application made by the Appellants on 22nd July, 1961, was barred by time. It is only the correctness of this decision that has been challenged before me, and the question turns on the "interpretation of Clause (5) or Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act (IX of 1908).

(2.) In a suit brought by the present Appellants Mukand Singh and others challenging the alienation of certain ancestral property and for its possession, they were granted decree for two -third share of the property in dispute measuring 9 Bighas 12 Biswas by a Subordinate Judge, Third Class, Fatehgarh Sahib at Bassi. This decree was, however, modified in Regular Second Appeal No. 244 of 1950 by the erstwhile High Court of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union on 25th May, 1953, and the Appellants were held to be entitled to 4/9th share of the property in dispute.

(3.) On 25th May, 1956, the Appellants applied for execution of the decree of the Court of Subordinate Judge, III Class at, Fatehgarh Sahib. In the course of those proceedings it came to light that in giving the details of the land of which 4/9th share was to be obtained by the Appellants one of the Khasra numbers did not find mention in the decree -sheet. This omission was also found in the plaint of the suit. Since the decree obtained by the Appellants was for possession of 4/9th undivided share in the entire land measuring 9 Bighas 12 Biswas the Appellants were faced with the situation that the decree could not be executed as one of the Khasra numbers which formed a part of the land decreed in their favour was not incorporated in the decree. Accordingly, on 31st July, 1957, the counsel for the decree -howlers (the present Appellants) prayed that the execution, proceedings be consigned to the record room as unsatisfied, stating as follows: