TILAK RAJ Vs. SMT. VIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of order dated 21.7.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalalabad (W) rejecting the objections filed by the Petitioner/objector to the execution of the decree dated 13.8.2002 filed by one Vimla Devi against Parmeshwari Devi, Mangat Ram and Ashok Kumar.

(2.) THE present Petitioner/objector filed an application under Order XXI Rules 35, 97, 101 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 objecting the execution of the decree on the ground that he is in possession of the property since 1978. It is alleged that the land was lying vacant and he occupied the land and raised construction thereof out of his own funds and since then he is in actual physical possession of the property. In sum and substance, the plea of the Petitioner/objector is that he has acquired ownership over the property by prescription. It is not in dispute that the objector/Petitioner is one of the judgment debtors, namely Mangat Ram. The Executing Court, on consideration of the application and objections filed by the decree holder dismissed the same holding therein that he has no independent right over the suit property and he being the son of one of the judgment debtors, the application is a device to stall the execution of the decree which has otherwise attained finality. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/objector has vehemently argued that the Petitioner by virtue of his long possession over the property has acquired title over the same by adverse possession, and therefore, he cannot be evicted from the property in question by execution of the decree against these judgment debtors who were not in possession at the time of passing of the decree. Suffice it to say that there is no declaration in favour of the objector that his possession has matured into a title by prescription or otherwise. He has not claimed any independent right and he being the son of one of the judgment debtors, it is presumed that he is holding the property through the judgment debtor or as his licensee. In any case, the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and stall the execution at the instance of the objector who has not been able to project any independent right over the property. The Executing Court also cannot establish the right of the objector or grant any declaration in his favour as claimed by him. It is for the objector to seek appropriate remedy before the competent court/forum. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.