C.R. No. 7039 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7039 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 17, 2011 Harchand Singh ................................................. Petitioner Versus Jaspal Singh and another ............................. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. A.S.Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RITU BAHRI, J. Challenge is to the order dated 7.10.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kharar, and the order dated 20.9.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mohali, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and objections of the petitioner have been rejected. Respondent No.1-Jaspal Singh, Decree Holder has C.R. No. 7039 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale of the land in dispute allegedly executed by Balbir Singh son of Harchand Singh in his favour. This suit was instituted on 26.7.2000. The respondent No.1-Decree Holder had paid the entire sale consideration under the agreement. He filed a suit for specific performance which was contested by Balbir Singh and the suit was ultimately decreed on 21.7.2004. Thereafter, the Decree Holder filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC for execution of the said decree in the execution proceedings. The present petitioner filed Objection petition dated 12.3.2007 alleging that he is the real owner of the land in question. His son Balbir Singh has no connection with the land in dispute. On an earlier occasion the suit for permanent injunction has been decreed against Balbir Singh, Gurdip Singh and Objector Harchand Singh (appellant). As per the appellant this decree was passed in collusion with his son Balbir Singh. The appellant has disowned his son Balbir Singh. The trial Court framed the following issues:- 1.Whether the objector-applicant is owner in possession of the property in question as alleged, if so its effect? OPO 2.Relief. After hearing the arguments and going through the record the trial Court came to the conclusion that the C.R. No. 7039 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] appellant/objector has not been able to establish that he is owner of the property in question. The learned trial Court decided the issue No.1 against the objector and dismissed the objection petition. On appeal, the findings of the trial Court have been affirmed by the Appellate Court by holding that the Jamabandi entries for the year 2006-07 are in the name of Norang Singh, father of Harchand Singh. No evidence has been led to show that after the death of Norang Singh the property has been inherited by the Objector Harchand Singh. From the record it transpires that as per the Local Commissioner's report (Ex.P3) the property in question is adjacent to the house of the Objector Harchand Singh. There is a separate boundary wall of the property in question and it cannot be said that it is part of the residential house of the Objector. It has been admitted by the Objector on an earlier occasion that Balbir Singh had been staying separately. Harchand Singh has two sons namely Balbir Singh alias Raghbir Singh and Balwinder Singh. Initially, the application was moved by Balwinder Singh and subsequently the same counsel filed the objections on behalf of Harchand Singh taking the plea that the property in question has been inherited by Harchand Singh after the death of his father Norang Singh. The objections were rejected by finally coming to the conclusion that Harchand Singh-appellant C.R. No. 7039 of 2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] failed to prove the title over the property. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or procedural lapse. The Civil Revision is dismissed. 17.11.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE