SARBJINDER SINGH Vs. KHUSHPAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the executing Court dated April 1, 1986, whereby the objections to the execution filed by the petitioners were dismissed.

(2.) KARNAIL Singh was the owner of the house, in dispute. He entered into an agreement of sale dated July 25, 1958, in favour of Jagdish Kaur. She filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sell which was decreed by the trial Court on November 7, 1985. During the pendency of the suit, both the plaintiff Jagdish Kaur and defendant Karnail Singh died and their legal representatives were brought on the record. The first appeal filed in this Court on behalf of the legal representatives of Karnail Singh, i.e., Bhagwan Kaur and others, was dismissed on September 22, 1983. It is the common case of the parties that at the time of the entering into of the agreement of sale, one Inderjit Singh was the tenant on the house, in dispute. It is also no more disputed that the said Inderjit Singh walked away in the year 1980 and was no more in occupation of the house, in question. The decree-holders filed the execution application against the judgment-debtors as well as against Sarbjinder Singh, Balbir Singh and Davinder Kaur, as they were alleged to be in illegal occupation of the house. Admittedly, Sarbjinder singh and others were not parties to the suit, but since they were in occupation of the house, they were made parties to the execution application and the warrants of possession were obtained against them as well. Two separate objection petitions were filed; one on behalf of Sarbjinder Singh, he was the nephew of the tenant Inderjit singh and was in occupation of the house along with him. Therefore, he was in occupation of the house as a member of the joint Hindu family and as a license under Inderjit Singh who was paying rent regularly to the landlady, i.e. Bhagwan Kaur. It was further pleaded that he was not a trespasser, nor he was in unauthorised occupation of the property. In the objection of the premises along with him being the members of his family. It was also pleaded that they were in possession as tenants prior to the year 1976 and were in occupation of the property as such in their own rights. Surprisingly enough, neither Balbir Singh, nor Davinder Kaur come forward before the executing Court in support on the objections filed by them. On that short ground alone, their objections were liable to be dismissed. However, Sarbjinder Singh did appear in the witness-box in support of his allegations, but he was unable to produce the tenant Inderjit Singh to support his version. The executing Court came to the conclusion that according to the objectors Inderjit Singh and they were occupying the premises being the members of the former's family and as such, they as well as Inderjit Singh were the tenants in their own rights, but they had not shown if they were related to Inderjit singh to claim the tenancy being the members of his family. It was further found that it was also not proved if they were ever in possession prior to the year 1976, as alleged by them. Ultimately, the executing Court found, -

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main question to be decided in this revision petition is : whether the decree-holders be directed to file separate proceedings either by way of a suit or by way of an ejectment application against the objectors, or they are liable to be dispossessed in execution of the decree for specific performance of the agreement ?