IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.R.No.479 of 2009 Date of order : 29.1.2009 Hakam Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Dev Raj Decree holder and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(ORAL) Facts giving rise to this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are that decree holder Dev Raj-respondent No.1 filed a suit for possession against respondent No.2-Nazar Singh in respect of suit land 16 kanal 0 marla comprised in Khasra No.7 (8-0), 8(8-0) of Rectangle No.51, Khewat No.15, Khautauni No.46, situated at village Chander Khurd on the ground that he is owner of the land, which was given in tenancy to one Ishwar Singh S/o Bir Singh (brother of petitioner Hakam Singh), who died issueless on 2.7.1993. It appears that after the death of Ishwar Singh-respondent No.2, Nazar Singh (son of the petitioner-judgment debtor) entered into illegal possession of the suit land. Accordingly, Dev Raj-decree holder filed a suit for possession. Nazar Singh-respondent No.2 contested the suit. Eight issues were framed and after leading of evidence, the suit was decreed in favour of decree holder-Dev Raj vide decree dated 10.4.2001 (Annexure P.1). It is not disputed that the appeal preferred by judgment debtor- respondent No.2 Nazar Singh was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. Thereafter, on the basis of the decree, Dev Raj-decree holder filed execution proceedings seeking possession of the suit land. At C.R.No.479 of 2009 #2# that stage, petitioner Hakam Singh, father of judgment-debtor Nazar Singh filed his objections asserting that he was in possession and was not a party to the earlier suit. It was averred by the objector that he along with his brother Ishwar Singh was in joint cultivating possession as tenants. Learned Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Division), Tohana vide its impugned order dated 23.10.2008 (Annexure P.3) rejected the objections filed. Hence, the present petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The only document, on which the petitioner objector is claiming possession of the suit land, is a copy of Nehri Khasra Girdawari, which is not sufficient to show his concern with the disputed property. The learned Executing Court has recorded a finding that in the judgment and decree dated 10.4.2001 passed in a civil suit No.555 of 1997, titled Dev Raj v. Nazar Singh, it has been categorically observed that after the death of Ishwar Singh, who had died issueless, disputed property reverted back to the decree holder since deceased Ishwar Singh had no male lenial descendant. Defendant Nazar Singh-judgment debtor is none other than the son of the petitioner. The plea of the petitioner, now being raised that he was in possession as co-tenant with Ishwar Singh, has already been decided. The petitioner has produced no evidence on record to show that he had any right to enter into possession of the suit property or was in possession. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. January 29, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE