Civil Revision No. 4506 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4506 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.08.2009 Puran Singh ....Petitioner Versus Gursewak Singh and others ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 18550-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant-petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-5 and is permitted to place on record the true copies thereof. CR No. 4506 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.04.2009, passed by the learned Executing Court, vide which the objection filed by the petitioner against the execution of decree of declaration and joint possession, has been ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner claimed, that in the decree passed, no share was specified and, therefore, the Court could not order symbolic possession. The contention raised by the petitioner, has been rejected by taking into consideration the fact, that the decree for declaration, was qua the share of Makhan Singh on the basis of 'Will'. The decree passed in favour of the decree-holder reads as under: - Civil Revision No. 4506 of 2009 (O&M) -2- “as a sequel to my findings under aforesaid issues, suit of the plaintiffs succeeds partly and is hereby decreed with costs while holding that plaintiff No. 1 is owner and is in joint possession over suit land on the basis of Will Ex. P1 dated 6.1.94. Impugned mutation No. 4340 is set aside. Impugned sale deed Ex.-D1 dated 12.5.99 in favour of defendant No. 4 is set aside to the extent it pertains to suit property. Defendants are permanently restrained from alienating suit property to any body else, forcibly and illegally. From the judgment and decree dated 4.12.2007, it is evidence that plaintiff No. 1 was held to be owner and in joint possession over the suit land on the basis of Will dated 6.1.94 Ex. P1 and in pursuance of said judgment and decree, decree holder has filed the execution application. Decree for joint possession cannot be said to be non-executable. The symbolic possession has to be delivered to the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC. As per Order 21 Rule 35(2) CPC where a decree is for the joint possession of immovable property, such possession shall be delivered by affixing a copy of the warrant in some conspicuous place on the property and proclaiming by beat of drum, or other customary mode, at some convenient place, the substance of the decree.” The learned Executing Court, therefore, was right that the share could be specified for the purpose of grant of symbolic possession. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 11, 2009 R.S.