BEANT KAUR Vs. BHOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Beant Kaur, petitioner is one of the three daughters of Shrimani Bholi widow of Tara Singh, respondent No. 1. Her other two druthers are Kaushalya and Lila, respondents No. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit against her three daughters for a declaration that she is the owner in possession of the house in dispute bearing No. 222/8, Partapn Nagar Colony, Thanesar, as described in the plaint. She alleged that decree dated 22nd December, 1979 has been obtained by her three daughters against her in Civil Suit No. 1034 of 1979 from the court of Senior Sub Judge, Kurukshetra, by fraud and mis-representation. She claimed that the said decree was liable to be set aside on the grounds pleaded in para 5 of the plaint. She further contended that the said decree is null and void and did not bind her. She also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining her daughters from interfering with her possession over the disputed house and from alienating the same.

(2.) Respondents No. 2 and 3 by way of their written statements, admitted the claim of respondent No. 1 and prayed that her suit may be decreed with costs. The petitioner, however, in the beginning contested the suit. She filed a written statement denying the allegations made by respondent No. 1 in her plaint. Later, however she and her counsel, along with counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 made statements in court admitting the claim of respondent No. 1 with the prayer that her suit may be decreed without costs. As a result the suit was decreed on 6th December, 1982 in favour of respondent No. 1 to the effect that she is the owner in possession of the house in dispute restraining the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 from interfering with her possession over the said house and from alienating the same.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed the instant execution application alleging that the petitioner is disobeying the decree. She is intentionally and wilfully interfering with her possession. She, therefore, prayed that the petitioner should be detained in civil prison and her property should be attached. The petitioner opposed this application by stating that she came in possession of a part of the house in dispute as per the decree dated 22nd December, 1979. Respondent No. 1 could dispossess her from the house only by filing a separate suit for possession. It was pointed our on her behalf, that an application for ad-interim injunction filed by respondent No. 1 during the pendancy of the suit restraining the petitioner from interfering with her possession, had been dismissed. She, therefore, claimed that she was, in fact, in possession of the suit property. She went to the extent of denying the admission made by her on the basis of which decree dated 6th December, 1982 had been passed in favour of respondent No. 1. By a detailed order dated 18th February, 1987, the learned trial Court rejected all these contentions and held that respondent No. 1 was declared the owner in possession of the house in dispute by virtue of the decree which is the subject matter of the execution. The petitioner had herself admitted her claim. The rejection of the application for adinterim injunction during the pendency of the suit lost significance when the suit was ultimately decreed. The petitioner is aggrieved against this order and thus approached this court.