DAYA Vs. JAI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of Additional District Judge, Jind dated July 29, 1988, whereby the order of the trial Court directing delivery of possession to the decree-holders was maintained.

(2.) In an execution application filed by the decree-holder Jai Narain and others, objections were filed on behalf of the third party Daya and others petitioners alleging that the decree-holders have obtained a decree for possession of the land in dispute against Ratti Ram which was not binding on them. According to them the land originally belonged to one Devak Ram who died leaving behind two daughters namely their mother Panmeshwari Devi and Smt. Santokhi. The decree was obtained against Santokhi who died on August 20, 1978. The objectors claimed to have succeeded Smt. Santokhi and as such they claimed to have become owners of entitle land i.e. one held share representing the estate of their mother parmeshwari Devi and the other one-half left by their mother's sister Santokhi Devi who was not survived by any heir. They further claimed that they were in possession of the suit land. They challenged a decree of the civil Court passed in favour of the decree-holders. In reply to the said objections, the decree-holders pleaded that the objection petition was a collusive one having been filed at the instance of Ratti Ram who had lost the litigation upto the High Court. According to the decree-holders the objection petition was not maintainable and they were not in possession as alleged. It was judgment-debtor Ratti Ram who was in possession of the suit land and was bound by the decree. The executing court dismissed the objections and feeling aggrieved, the objectors preferred, civil Appeal No. 26 of 1986 which was decided on March 4, 1987 by the District Judge, Jind holding that the petition dated 5.7.1985, shall be treated as intimation in writing to the executing court of the intention of objectors to resist or obstruct the delivery of possession and it was incumbent upon the decree-holders to make an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code complaining of such obstruction so that the matters in controversy could be gone into and decided according to law.

(3.) On remand, the executing Court framed some issues on 5.12.1987, on the objection petition of objectors in the light of the order dated 4.3.1987, but at the same time, it ordered that proceedings for taking possession shall proceed ahead as per rules because objections cannot protect their dis-possession in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Harijan Wood Workers Production-cum-Sales Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Smt. Maya Wati and another, 1985 AIR(P&H) 181. Against the said order of the executing court the objectors preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide the impugned order dated July 29, 1988. No objection was raised before the lower Appellate court as to the maintainability of the appeal, therefore, the same was dismissed on merits. Dissatisfied with the same, the objectors have filed this petition in this Court.