JAGIR SINGH Vs. HARTEJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this revision against lower Court's order dated November 15, 1994, whereby respondent-decree-holders' petition filed for final decree is allowed and Local Commissioner is appointed to suggest mode of partition of the disputed land.

(2.) SKELETAL facts of the case are that these decree-holders filed a suit for partition against the petitioner-judgment-debtors, which was allowed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Moga, vide his order dated November 13, 1972. The petitioner-judgment-debtors, aggrieved by that order, filed civil suit and obtained injunction order against the decree-holders, but their suit was dismissed on February 1, 1978. They filed appeal, which was also dismissed on February 24, 1983. Mohinder Singh, Chamkaur Singh and Darshan Singh decree- holders filed an application in the Court of Tehsildar, Moga (with powers of Assistant Collector Ist Grade) on the ground that these applicants earlier filed an application for partition, which was allowed on November 13, 1972 but because the respondents (petitioners herein) started civil litigation, these applicants could not get possession of their respective shares. Considering the provisions of section 122 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the Tehsildar held that after the expiry of three years from the date of application of partition proceedings i.e. issuance of instrument of partition of confirmation of statement, the jurisdiction is with the Civil Court to grant the relief of possession.

(3.) THEREAFTER these decree-holders filed an execution petition, in which order dated August 3, 1991, (Annexure P-2) was passed, holding that the decree has been passed for possession of shares to the extent of 114/224 shares. Thus, the decree-holders have become co-sharers with judgment-debtors to the extent of 114/224 shares, but physical possession can only be obtained by the decree-holders by moving application for partition of the suit land before the proper Court. The executing Court held that symbolical possession can be delivered to the decree-holders to the extent of their share decreed. Accordingly, he ordered that warrant of possession for delivery of symbolical joint possession be issued, but on September 14, 1991, the decree- holders got their execution petition dismissed as withdrawn.