C.R. No. 1738 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1738 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 2, 2009 Manjit Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Jaswant Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate for the respondents. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated December 13, 2007 passed by the trial Court and order dated February 27, 2008 passed by lower Appellate Court whereby the objections of the petitioner have been rejected observing that these have been filed to delay the execution of the decree. C.R. No. 1738 of 2008 [2] Brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the case are that vide order dated September 30, 2007 of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samana, a decree for possession was passed in favour of Jaswant Singh, plaintiff- respondent No.1 and against Davinder Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur, respondents No.2 and 3 for possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 46//29/2/3 (1-2) and Khewat/ Khatoni No. 210/444 to the extent of 0K 7 M plot i.e. 36 ft x 47 ft marked as ABCD shown in the site plan enclosed with the plaint, situated at Patran, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, bounded as follows: East: Property of Dalip Chand West: Street North: Nazool Land South: Defendant self property. An appeal against the said decree preferred by the defendants was dismissed by Sh.S.K. Garg, Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide order dated January 6, 2001. The decree-holder/ respondent No.1 had filed an execution application against judgment debtor Davinder Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur for execution of the decree dated September 30, 1997. Petitioner Manjit Singh is the son of defendant-judgment debtor. He has filed an objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 151 CPC by asserting that petitioner- objector has been residing separately from the family of his father and he has separate in mess and cultivation from his father and brother. The petitioner-objector claims that he had purchased a plot comprised in Khasra No. 49//29/2/3(1-2) of Patran vide registered sale C.R. No. 1738 of 2008 [3] deed dated October 17, 1989 for valuable consideration and that the plot purchased by him is bounded as follows:- East: Property of Dr.Devinder Singh purchased from Dalip Chand. West: Harnek Singh South: Devinder Singh son of Pala Singh He has averred in the objection petition that the plot had been purchased by him from Pala Singh son of Hira Singh and Gurcharan Kaur wife of Santa Singh for valuable consideration without notice. The petitioner constructed a house upon the said plot by getting site plan approved from NAC, Patran. He applied for a loan from the House Fed, Punjab, Chandigarh and duly executed documents of mortgage regarding the abovesaid property in favour of Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd., Ropar. He has constructed his house in the year 1989 and has been residing in the same house after completion. At the time of purchasing the said property he has made reasonable enquiry and the name of decree-holder never figured in the revenue record either in ownership column or in possession column of the jamabandi. The objector- petitioner claimed that the decree-holder never came into possession in any part of the property purchased by him and that the decree which is sought to be executed is not binding upon the objector as such the decree holder has got no right to get the possession from objector in execution application. The objector has been recorded s co-sharer in khasra No. 46//2/3(1-2). The status of the petitioner is that of a co-sharer and the decree cannot be executed against C.R. No. 1738 of 2008 [4] him. The decree-holder contested the petition and denied the objection that petitioner is residing separately from his father or that he is having a separate mess. So far as the claim of the objector that he had purchased 4.5 marlas being 2/5th share of 11 marlas on October 17, 1989, whereas the decree-holder had purchased 0K 7 M from Davinder Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur on October 19, 1978 is concerned, decree-holder in his reply contended that Davinder Singh, Pala Singh and objector are close relatives and that they have full knowledge of the suit property having been sold to the decree-holder vide registered sale deed regarding which a decree has already been passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court on January 16, 2000. The objector had never raised any objection or apply to the Court either in suit or during the appeal regarding the property in question being owned by him. The title has been claimed by the objector on the basis of a sale deed executed by Pala Singh and Gurbachan Kaur on October 17, 1989. Vide impugned order, the objections filed by Manjit Singh have been dismissed on the following grounds:- i) Objector Manjit Singh is son of defendant- judgment debtors Davinder Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur and a perusal of the sale deed dated October 17, 1989 shows that Pala Singh had sold 2/5th share out of ½ share of the land comprised in Khasra No. 46//29/2/3(1-2) i.e. 4 ½ marla land. The trial Court compared the boundaries of C.R. No. 1738 of 2008 [5] property mentioned by the objector in his objection petition and the boundaries of the suit property mentioned in judgment and decree and arrived at a conclusion that the objector in his objection petition has not made an attempt to tally the boundaries of the suit property. The trial Court after considering the boundaries held as follows:- “Objector Manjit Singh in order to linger on the execution proceedings filed by the decree-holder against his parents wrongly mentioned the boundaries of the suit property in his objection petition by alleging that on East: Dr. Devinder Singh’s property having been purchased from Dalip Chand, on North: Harnek Singh being in possession of the property earlier belonging to Nazool property.” The trial court further observed that: “The decree-holder filed the execution for getting the possession of the suit property as per the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1997 and objector who is the member of the family of defendants/ J.Ds. has not raised any objection till the filing of the present objection petition since 1995, when the C.R. No. 1738 of 2008 [6] said civil suit was filed by decree-holder Jaswant Singh against his parents Davinder Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur. It is not out of place to mention here that the site plan showing the residential built up house of Manjit Singh has been compared with the property which is subject matter of the decree. With the assistance of counsel for the parties, I have also compared the site plan which was produced by Jaswant Singh, decree- holder at the time of filing of the suit and the site plan which has been produced by Manjit Singh. On comparison, it is clear that the property which is claimed by the objector is the same property regarding which decree had been passed. The decree-holder- father and mother of the petitioner had never claimed that the subject matter of the suit which had been decreed against them, was in possession of their son till the decision of the case by the trial Court on September 30, 1997, as the objector claims that he is in possession of the property which is subject matter of the decree being owner by virtue of registered sale deed dated October 17, 1989. In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the objection petition of the petitioner. The Executing court has rightly observed that the objection petition is a device to delay the proceedings. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. C.R. No. 1738 of 2008 [7] September 2, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE