IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.8277 of 2010 Date of decision : 20.12.2010 Shiv Bhagwan Jakhar ....Petitioner Versus Chhotu Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2010. His objections to the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent/decree-holder have been dismissed. He is the son of the judgment-debtor. He pleaded that the property is ancestral and the disputed khasra numbers which have been sold to the respondent- decree-holder fell to his share after partition. The Executing Court dismissed the objections as misconceived by noticing the fact that prior thereto the objections of the father of the petitioner were dismissed vide order dated 10.2.2010. The contention which has been raised herein is that the sale of the specific khasra numbers which are in possession of the C.R.No.8277 of 2010 -2- petitioner could not be made as the property has fallen to his share after partition. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner has not alienated these khasra numbers. To a specific query the counsel for the petitioner could not show any material from where it can be inferred that the property has been partitioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner then sought to raise a plea that the property is considered to be joint, therefore, the specific khasra numbers cannot be given to the respondent by way of execution of the decree unless the land is partitioned. Such contention cannot be accepted as the stand of the petitioner is ambiguous. On one hand he states that after partition the land has come to him and on the other hand he states that the land is joint. In view of this vacillating stand the contentions of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. That apart, the objections of the judgment- debtor had already been dismissed and the petitioner being the son who has filed the objections, subsequent to the objections being dismissed by the Executing Court, which objections were initiated by the father of the petitioner, it seems that the present attempt is only to defeat the execution of the decree. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 20.12.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss