Civil Revision No.604 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.604 of 2008 Date of Decision:25.03.2009 Ram Chander ....petitioner Versus State of Haryana & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Amit Jain,Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Maloo Chahal, DAG Haryana for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.07.2007 and 07.12.2007 passed by Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Kurukshetra and Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, respectively, whereby his objections in the execution petition of judgment and decree dated 01.03.1996 have been dismissed. As per the averments made in the revision petition, the State of Haryana filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that the suit land measuring 37K-7M stood escheated to the State after the death of Tula Ram. The said suit was contested by one Multan Singh on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by Tula Ram in his favour. Ultimately, vide judgment and decree dated 01.03.1996 the suit was decreed and the suit Civil Revision No.604 of 2008 2 land was ordered to be escheated to the State. The aforesaid judgment and decree became final as first appeal filed by Multan Singh was dismissed by District Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment dated 10.01.1988. The second appeal and SLP filed in this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid judgment and decree were also dismissed. In execution petition filed by the State of Haryana, petitioner filed objections inter alia alleging that the order of the Civil Court declaring the suit land escheated to the State of Haryana was not binding on him as he was legal heir of Tula Ram and was in possession of the suit land and therefore he could not be dispossessed from the suit land through a decree to which he was not a party. The respondent-decree holder contested the objections of the petitioner on the ground that he had no concern with the suit property and the third party objections were not maintainable. The Executing Court framed issues and parties were allowed to lead evidence. Vide impugned order dated 18.07.2007 the Executing Court held that the petitioner has failed to prove his relationship with deceased Tula Ram. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide order dated 07.12.2007. Challenging the aforesaid impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has proved his relationship with Tula Ram deceased by proving pedigree table Ex.OW3 which was prepared by his uncle Des Raj and the same was proved from the testimony of Mohan Pal who was examined as OW2 and thus the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit. Undisputedly, the pedigree table Ex.OW3 which is alleged to have been proved on record from the statement of Mohan Pal Civil Revision No.604 of 2008 3 OW2 was prepared by one Des Raj who is admittedly alive but has not been examined to prove the pedigree table. Thus, the aforesaid document was rightly disbelieved by the Courts below. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 25.03.2009 neenu