CR No.5536 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5536 of 2010 Decided on : 31.08.2010 Mamta ... Petitioner versus Nathu Ram ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present : Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 16.08.2010 passed by Executing Court whereby her objections were dismissed and warrant of possession with the police help has been ordered. As per the averments, the decree dated 30.11.1998 was passed by the Court of Sh. Ranjan Khular, Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Jalandhar, which was upheld vide judgment and decree dated 06.05.2003 by the then learned ADJ, Jalandhar. Vide aforesaid judgment and decree respondent No.3 i.e. defendant/judgment debtor Yashoda Devi was directed to vacate the half portion of House No.37 in Mohalla No.32, Jalandhar and hand over the vacant possession to plaintiff as shown red in the attached site plan. The petitioner who is daughter-in-law of respondent No.3 - Yashoda Devi – judgment debtor filed objections to the execution of the aforesaid decree claiming that the aforesaid judgment and decree CR No.5536 of 2010 -2- was not binding upon her rights as the suit property was not owned by the decree-holder. The petitioner was in possession of the property owned by the Cantonment Board and was in her possession in her personal capacity. Since she was not JD in the present case and was residing separately from her mother-in-law respondent No.3 i.e. Yashoda Devi, decree passed against her mother-in-law is not binding upon her. The objections were contested by the decree-holder by submitting that the objections filed on her behalf were not maintainable and were abuse of process of law. The possession was being taken in execution of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The objector had not come to the court with clean hands and had suppressed the material facts. The house in dispute was evacuee property and was allotted to Moti Ram son of Janku Ram. Conveyance deed was also issued in the name of Moti Ram, which was subsequently got registered. Moti Ram permitted Panna Lal along with his wife Sampatia Devi along with Yashoda Devi as a licensee. It was further stated that the entire issue has already been discussed vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998 which is sought to be executed. It was further stated that another suit filed by Nathu Ram for mandatory injunction for delivery of possession against Samptia and against the judgment debtor was also decreed and suit filed by Yashoda Devi daughter of Panna Lal for permanent injunction against Nathu Ram and Chiranji Lal was dismissed upto the High Court. Another suit filed by Yashoda Devi for declaration that she was owner in joint possession was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 08.1.2007 and appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree was also dismissed on 24.07.2009. It was stated that thereafter one Balraj CR No.5536 of 2010 -3- son of Yashoda Devi filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97, which were dismissed summarily by the then Civil Judge (JD) Jalandhar vide judgment order dated 15.03.2010 and warrants of possession were issued but the possession could not be delivered as the Yashoda Devi locked the premises and also got obtained stay order from the court of Sh. Vishesh, Civil Judge (JD) Jalandhar in suit titled as Reeta and another vs. Vijay and another. The objector being family member of the Yashoda Devi has got no independent right. Similar objections filed by Balraj, who was the brother of the husband of the present objector, has already been dismissed. The Executing Court vide impugned order rejected the objections filed by the petitioner holding that the objections filed by the petitioner are prima facie, frivolous and the same have been filed just to delay the execution proceedings. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property in her own right, which is independent of Yashoda Devi – judgment debtor and the property in question is the ownership of Union of India being managed by Cantonment Board, Jalandhar. Therefore, the decree-holder has no right to get the possession from the petitioner and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders and the averments made in the petition and the documents attached with it. Admittedly, the title of the property in dispute has been held to be of Moti Ram. The contention raised by the learned counsel is not acceptable as the title of the suit property has also been upheld by the Civil Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a family member of Yashoda Devi against whom civil suit CR No.5536 of 2010 -4- qua suit property has already been decided upto the High Court. There is nothing on record to show that she has any title right or interest in the property in dispute independently of Yasodha Devi aforesaid. Thus, I find no merit in the petition. Dismissed. August 31, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) sonia JUDGE