RSA No.3650 of 2009 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3650 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:15.11.2010. Jai Parkash ...Appellant Versus Smt. Indira Rani and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for declaration has been decreed to the effect that the plaintiff is owner of 2/3rd share of the tractor in question. In brief, the case set up by the plaintiff is that she along with defendant Nos.1 and 2, who happened to be her real brothers, purchased Tractor bearing No.HYB-5103, Mark Ford 3000, Model 1975. Her brother Ram Kuwar had transferred his 1/3rd share in favour of the plaintiff by way of an affidavit. The plaintiff then claimed 2/3rd share in the said tractor and 1/3rd share was owned by the present appellant Jai Parkash. The learned Courts below assessed the value of the tractor to the tune of `60,000/-, out of which an amount of `40,000/- fell to the share of the plaintiff, being the owner to the extent of 2/3rd share. RSA No.3650 of 2009 (O&M) -2- ****** At the time of notice of motion on 29.04.2010, learned counsel for the appellant had shown his willingness to deposit `40,000/- before the Executing Court. The following order was, thus, passed: - “Learned counsel for the appellant states that he is willing to deposit `40,000/- which is 2/3rd of `60,000/-, the value of the tractor. Notice of motion for 18.08.2010. If the appellant deposits the aforesaid amount of `40,000/- before the Executing Court within a period of three days from today, the auction of the disputed property shall remain stayed”. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the amount of `40,000/- has already been deposited before the Executing Court, as directed by this Court. It is submitted that he would have no objection if the amount of `40,000/- is paid by the Executing Court to the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and the judgment and decree of the learned Courts below, on the basis of which the execution has been filed by the plaintiff, be treated to have been satisfied. This proposal is accepted by learned counsel for respondent No.1. In view thereof, the present appeal is disposed of with a direction that the amount of `40,000/- deposited by the appellant with the Executing Court in terms of the order dated 29.04.2010 passed by this Court, be paid to the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and the judgment and decree, passed in favour of the plaintiff, be treated to have been satisfied and the auction of the tractor in question shall not take place and shall remain in possession and ownership of the appellant herein. November 15, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE