TALE RAM Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 887 to 890 of 1978, as the question involved is common in all the cases.

(2.) No one is present on behalf of the decree-holder respondent in spite of the issuance of the actual date notice.

(3.) Sant Lal got a decree for possession by way of pre-emption on May 8, 1969. In the said suit, the vendee Tale Ram took the plea that, in fact, his father Hari Ram who was admittedly the tenant on the suit land under the vendor was the real vendee and that the sale in his favour was benami. However, this plea raised by him was turned down by the trial Court and the suit was decreed on merits in favour of the plaintiff-pre-emptor. In the appeal filed by Tale Ram, his father Hari Ram died. However, ultimately, the appeal was dismissed and the decree of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiff's suit was maintained. The second appeal filed in this Court by the vendee Tale Ram was also dismissed. The decree-holder sought the execution of the decree whereas Tale Ram judgment-debtor, filed objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia on the ground that the decree was not executable in view of the provisions of section 17-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act). According to him, his father Hari Ram who was admittedly the tenant on the suit land under the vendor at the time of the sale had died during the pendency of the appeal against the decree of the trial Court and, therefore, in that situation, on his death, he became the tenant on the suit land and, thus, no decree could be passed against him; he being the tenant on the suit land. According to him, even if this objection was not taken by him in appeal, he was entitled to raise the same at the time of the execution of the decree passed against him. The objection petition was contested by the decree-holder on the ground that at the time of the passing of the decree by the trial Court, the objector was not holding the status of a tenant and as such, the objection petition could not be looked into at that stage by the executing Court as it could not go behind the decree. In any case, the said objection was available to the objector in appeal and since no such objection was taken then, on that ground also, he was debarred from raising the same in execution of the decree. The executing Court framed the necessary issues and ultimately came to the conclusion that it could not go behind the decree. The title in the suit property had already passed to the decree-holder on deposit of the pre-emption money and, therefore, the plea that the decree was a nullity and not executable stood rejected. Consequently, the objection petition was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the vendee-judgment-debtor Tale Ram has filed these four petitions in this Court.