BUA DITTA Vs. ANANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated March 27, 1995 passed by the learned Munsiff Hiranagar whereby in the pending execution proceedings of the decree dated 10.9.87 he perpetually restrained the petitioner not to interfere in the possession or the land described in that decree. The decree was for permanent injunction directing the defendant (petitioner herein) not to interfere in the possession of the respondent regarding the land measuring 4 kanals 3 marlas comprising of khasra No. 73 of village Raghu Chack Teh Hiranagar.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that Santu was the tiller of the above stated land in the year kharif, 1971 and after coming into force the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, proprietary rights of the land were vested in the State. U/S 4 of the said Act, Santu became the prospective owner. Before proprietary rights could be conferred u/s 8 of the said Act, he expired and thereafter Mutation No.20 3 u/s 8 of the said Act was attested in favour of the petitioner Bua Ditta and Giano (husband of respondents) as well as Smt. Sita Devi and Smt. Shiv Devi. Bua Ditta and Giano were his sons and Smt. Sita Devi and Smt. Shiv Devi were his daughters. Total land is 4 kanals and 3 marlas. It is pleaded that petitioner herein possessed two kanals and two marlas of land whereas remaining two kanals and one marla of land came to be possessed by the respondent. Respondent Smt. Ananti Devi filed a suit for permanent injunction and obtained decree for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein and his son not to interfere in the land comprising of 4 kanals 3 marlas. This decree dated 10.9.87 was put to execution and the impugned order was passed.

(3.) BEFORE the executing court a specific plea was taken that this decree was not executable in view of the mandatory provisions of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, but the executing court did not address itself to this significant aspect of the case and held that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree even if the decree was a nullity or passed against the mandatory provisions of law. According to the executing court, these matters do not fall under the ambit of section 550 CPC.