C.R. No. 7125 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7125 of 2010 Date of Decision: 29.9.2011 Rajinder Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Ved Parkash and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. The objections having been dismissed by the executing court, the petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 15.10.2010 by way of instant revision petition. 2. Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the revision petition are that the plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for possession against one Parmeshwari Devi. As per averment in the revision petition, the correct name is Panweshwari Devi. However, reference in this order is made as Parmeshwari Devi as per certified copy of impugned order dated 15.10.2010. During the pendency of the suit, on 15.1.1987, one Ram Kishan son of Parmeshwari Devi moved an application informing the trial Court that Smt. Parmeshwari Devi had already died on 22.10.1982, i.e. much prior to the date of filing of the C.R. No. 7125 of 2010 -2- suit. The trial court vide order dated 4.12.1987 directed the plaintiffs- respondents to file an affidavit to the effect that the defendant was living at the time of filing of the suit. In pursuance thereof, Narain Dass one of the respondents filed an affidavit dated 30.1.1988 before the trial court stating therein that the defendant who was also known by the name of Shanti was alive on the date of filing the suit and is still alive. The trial court passed exparte decree dated 19.9.1995 for possession in favour of the respondents. According to the petitioner, Parmeshwari Devi had died on 22.10.1982, her son Ram Kishan and her husband Ram Saroop had become the owner of the property in dispute and they sold the same to Smt. Omi and Des Raj who in turn further sold the same to the petitioners vide registered sale deed. The respondents on the basis of decree dated 19.9.1995 filed execution and the executing court issued warrant of possession. The petitioner filed objections to the execution petition. Upon notice, the respondents filed reply to the objection petition. The executing court vide order dated 15.10.2010 dismissed the objection petition and issued warrant of possession in favour of the decree-holders. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decree dated 19.9.1995 was a nullity as the same was passed against a dead person and was, thus, unexecutable. It was also contended that the petitioner has purchased possessory rights from Ram Kishan son of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi-defendant and, therefore, was in authorized possession of the same. C.R. No. 7125 of 2010 -3- 5. Learned counsel for the decree-holders submitted that the property in dispute was an evacuee property which was auctioned on 17.3.1956 and the sale was confirmed in favour of the auction- purchaser on 18.2.1974. It was thereafter that the said property was sold by a sale deed in favour of the respondents-decree-holders. A valid decree had been passed in favour of the respondents which was being executed. 6. The executing court while dismissing the objections of the petitioner had recorded that the objector has not been able to show that Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Parmeshwari Devi were two different ladies. It was also recorded that the objector had failed to establish the factum of death of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi on 22.10.1982 as he has failed to produce the death certificate of said Parmeshwari Devi to prove her exact date of death. The relevant observations recorded by the executing court are as under:- “16. In the present case execution after framing of the issue objector Rajender Singh himself has appeared in the witness box as OW1 but he did not disclose the date of death of Parmeshwari Devi. Ram Kishan, son of Parmeshwari Devi has also appeared in the witness box as OW2 and deposed in the cross examination that his mother died in the year 1984. Whereas in the application under Section 151 CPC (OW1/1) it was mentioned that his mother Parmeshwari Devi died on 22.10.1982. The date of the death in the application OW1/1 and in the C.R. No. 7125 of 2010 -4- statement of Ram Kishan is absolutely contradictory. It was the duty of the objector to produce the death certificate of Parmeshwari Devi to prove the exact date of her death. No documentary evidence whatsoever has been produced by the objector to prove the date of death of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi. 17. It is also the objection of the objector that Shanti Devi and Parmeshwari Devi were two different ladies. But no cogent or convincing evidence has been produced by the objector to prove the fact that Shanti Devi and Parmeshwari Devi were two different ladies. I have perused the statement of the witnesses examined by the objector very carefully and meticulously but I could not lay my hand on the evidence which goes to prove the fact that Shanti Devi and Parmeshwari Devi were two different ladies. It was also the duty of the objector to prove by cogent or convincing evidence that Shanti Devi and Parmeshwari Devi were two different ladies.” 7. Adverting to the second objection, the same was repelled by noticing that the objector had not produced any sale deed to establish his ownership of the property as claimed by him. The findings of the executing court read thus:- “Objector Rajender Kumar did not produce any sale deed allegedly executed by Ram Kishan and Ram Sarup in favour of Smt. Omi Devi and Des Raj and C.R. No. 7125 of 2010 -5- the sale deed executed by Omi Devi and Des Raj in favour of objector Rajender Kumar. First of all it is not proved on file that Parmeshwari Devi was the owner of the suit property. Rather from the perusal of the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1995 it is proved on file that present decree holders are the owners of the suit property. When Parmeshwari Devi had title in the suit property then there was no occasion for Ram Kishan and Ram Sarup to inherit the title of the suit property after the death of Parmeshwari Devi and they had no right to alienate the same further as alleged in para no.2 (7) of the plaint. Moreover, in the absence of registered sale deed no right has been created in favour of the objector Rajinder Kumar. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that Rajinder Kumar has no concern whatsoever with the title of the suit land. The possession of Parmeshwari Devi was illegal and decree for possession was passed against her. Therefore, the possession of Ram Kishan is also illegal and he has no locus standi to remain in possession in the suit property. Resultantly he has no locus standi to file the objection petition. There is no dispute regarding the case laws titled Balkar Singh Vs. Baljinder Singh and others 1994(1) PLR 197, Chamela Ram Vs. Balwant Singh and others C.R. No. 7125 of 2010 -6- 1999 (2) PLR 35, Joginder Singh Vs. Chander Kanta through LR and others 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 419, Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal and another 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 261, Kesar Singh and others Vs. Sadhu 1996 PLJ 186, Ram Chandra Verma Vs. Shri Jagat Singh and others 1996(1) LJR 469 referred these authorities are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the present case no judgment and decree was passed by the court against a dead person.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the findings recorded by the executing court were perverse or erroneous. Accordingly, no exception could be taken to the order passed by the executing court which may warrant interference by this Court. Consequently, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. September 29, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE