Civil Revision No.7759 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7759 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 13.01.2011 Sohan Lal and others ...... Petitioners VERSUS Shanti Devi and another ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: The petitioners have preferred this petition against the order dated 14.08.2010, passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka, dismissing their objection petition. Smt.Sugna Devi had filed the suit against the petitioners- objectors and sought the decree of possession against them. After her death on 07.07.2003, respondent No.1 Shanti Devi filed the execution petition on 11.10.2000, claiming herself to be the legal heirs of Sugna Devi on the basis of Will. The petitioners/objectors are the sons of Began Bai, other daughter of Sugna Devi. They have preferred the objection petition stating that without getting probate on the basis of the alleged will, respondent No.1 was not entitled to execute the decree. Heard. The trial Court has rightly observed that the objections raised by the objectors-petitioners are superfluous in the light of the judgment delivered in case Gouri Bahu through LRs. Smt.Shashi Devi vs. Civil Revision No.7759 of 2010 2 Gopal Dass 2008 (1) RCR (Rent) 630 wherein it was observed that a legatee under the Will is entitled to execute the decree without obtaining certificate of probate. The Apex Court in case Gurdev Singh vs. Narain Singh 2007 (2) RCR 664 also observed that the Court could not go beyond the decree, therefore, the decree holder has every right to execute the decree. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments delivered in case Mrs.Hem Nolini Judah (since deceased) and after her legal representative Mrs.Marlean Wilkinson versus Mrs.Isolyne Sarojbashini Bose and others AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1471 and Mrs.Usha Subramaniam versus Cdr. Daljit Kumar Bhandari 1994 (3) RRR 626. Both the judgments relate to the house situated in an urban area but a different procedure has been provided under the Punjab Land Revenue Act for transfer of ownership of the land over which the land revenue is payable. As such, these two judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 13.01.2011 mamta-II