RAM KRISHAN Vs. RULDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is at the behest of Ram Krishan, objector, challenging the order passed on 16/12/1989 by District Judge, Una, allowing the appeal of decree-holder respondent No. 1 and holding the objections filed by Ram Krishan as not maintainable and thereby setting aside the order passed on 24/12/1987 by Senior Sub Judge, Una, who had allowed the objections and dismissed the execution petition.

(2.) It would be pertinent to give some background of the litigation. On 16/08/1973, Civil Suit No. 300 of 1973 was instituted by decree-holder Rulda impleading Shakti Chand, Anirudh and Hem Raj sons of Bashambar as defendants, claiming possession of 17 kanals 6 marlas of land. The Suit was decreed on 9/06/1977. One fact, which deserves notice at this stage, is that Ram Krishan petitioner, while appearing as DW 1 in the said suit had deposed that the suit land was in his possession as tenant on payment of rent, which had been given to him in the year 1971 by its owners Munshi Ram and Gokali. Munshi Ram had mortgaged his 1/2 share with Shakti Chand defendant but he was in actual possession thereof. During cross-examination, at the behest of Rulda, he denied the suggestion that he was in forcible occupation of the property. Despite this evidence on record, the court granted decree of possession in favour of Rulda against Shakti Chand etc. An appeal preferred by Shakti Chand against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the District Judge, as not pressed, on 19/01/1978.

(3.) Though the decree in the suit had been passed on 9/06/1977, yet no execution was taken out immediately thereafter and the same was preferred only in Nov. 1984. The executing court directed issuance of warrant for delivery of possession, which warrant was returned by the revenue authorities unexecuted with the report of Bishambar Dass, Kanungo dated 19/02/1985 that Shakti Chand, Anirudh and Hem Raj, judgment-debtors were not recorded in possession of the suit property, which was shown to be in occupation of Ram Krishan, firstly as non-occupancy tenant and on coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, mutation of conferment of proprietary rights had been attested in his favour.