IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.6 of 2003. Date of decision: 16.12.2008. Shakoor and another ….Petitioners. -Versus- Rakesh Kumar and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioners: Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For Respondents 1&2: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 31.10.2002 whereby the Objections under Order 21 Rules 97 CPC filed by the petitioner Shakoor and the objections under Section 47 CPC filed by his father Mohd Sadiq who has since expired have been rejected by one common order. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr.K.D.Sood, learned counsel for the respondents that no Revision is maintainable against the order rejecting the objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. This objection is well founded. However, since the objections under Section 47 have been disposed of by the same order, without going into the technical aspect of the matter, I have gone into the merits of the case. 2 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Decree Holders had filed a suit against Habib Khan and Mohd Sadiq for possession of the suit land comprised in khata khatauni No.32/40 to 44, khasra No.187/29 measuring 1 bigha 11 biswas situate at village Kedarpur Bhoopur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib. According to the plaintiff he had sold some land to the defendants but the defendants taking undue advantage of his old age demolished the boundary wall and encroached upon the suit land. In the written statement plea of adverse possession was raised. It was also urged that this land formed part of the land originally sold by the plaintiff to the defendants. They however admitted that at the time of attestation of mutation khasra number in question was not shown to have been sold and neither the same has been reflected in the tatima. It was also alleged that some portion of the land was acquired and the compensation thereof was taken by the plaintiff who had assured the defendants that the defendants will be made owner of the suit land. This contention of the defendants was rejected by the trial Court and the suit of the plaintiff decreed. Appeal filed by the defendants was rejected by the learned District Judge and even the second appeal filed by them was dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, execution petition was filed by the decree holders. In these execution proceedings Mohd Sadiq who was one of the original JD filed objections. The objections raised in the objection petition are the same as the defences which were raised in the suit. It was again contended that the suit land had been sold to the defendants; that the suit land was to be given to them in lieu of 3 compensation received; according to the defendants the fresh demarcation was got done which showed that the land in his possession was less than what was actually sold to him. Petitioner Shakoor who is the son of Mohd Sadiq filed separate objections petition in which it was claimed that one of the original JD Habib Khan had gifted the entire property to the petitioner on 15.8.1975 by oral gift. As far as the objections of Shakoor are concerned it is obvious that he can have no claim to the land unless it is first shown that Habib Khan was the owner of the land. There can be no valid gift of the land of which a person is not the owner. All Courts right up to this Court had held the decree holders to be the owners of the land and had decreed the suit of the decree holder for possession of the suit land. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of Sh.Shakoor that the land was gifted to him. Even the objections raised by Mohd Sadiq were totally frivolous since by means of these objections the JD wanted to go behind the decree and reopen the judgment on the merits of the case. It would be pertinent to mention that during the pendency of these proceedings the decree holders have taken possession of the suit land through Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the Revision petition which is accordingly rejected with no order as to costs. December 16, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge