HARBHAJAN KAUR Vs. HARDIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the executing Court dated April 2, 1987, whereby the objection petition filed on behalf of the petitioners was dismissed.

(2.) Hardit Singh obtained decree dated October 18, 1985, against his son Kanwar Jaspal Singh inter alia for the delivery of possession of house No. 3346, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh. During the execution proceedings Kanwar Jaspal Singh died leaving behind his widow Charanjit Kaur, minor daughter Jasprit and his mother Harbhajan Kaur. The said Charanjit Kaur and Harbhajan Kaur filed the objection petition on the grounds that they were dependent upon the decreeholder Hardit Singh for their maintenance as they had no independent source of income from any quarter whereas Hardit Singh was having a very good business and was financially well off. Notice of the application was given to the decree-holder, but for the reasons best known to him, no reply was filed on his behalf. The executing Court inter alia observed in the order under revision as follows :

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners (the objectors) submitted that Harbhajan Kaur, the wife of the decree-holder Hardit Singh could not be said to be the legal representative of her son Kanwar Jaspal Singh. She had an independent right of maintenance and thus had also the right to remain in occupation of the house, in dispute. Similarly, according to the learned counsel, the daughter-in-law Charanjit Kaur was also entitled to maintenance from her father-in-law in view of section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, objection petition could not be dismissed summarily without going into the allegations and allowing the parties to lead evidence to prove the same. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the decree-holder submitted that the objection petition being frivolous was liable to be dismissed as such. According to the learned counsel, no objections were, maintainable under Order XXI Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a third person unless possession was surrendered to the decree-holder. It was further contended that the objections (objectors - ed.) had already civil suit for the grant of the declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to reside in the house, in dispute, and also for the grant of the injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the house and further restraining him from interfering with their peaceful possession of the house in any manner. Thus, argued the learned counsel, having filed the said civil suit, the objection petition was not maintainable. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Hukam Chand v. Santosh Kumari,1984 PunLR 436 and Harijan W.W.P.-cum-S.Co-Op. Secy. Ltd. v. Maya Wati, 1985 AIR(P&H) 181.