The main legal point established in the judgment is that a decree may not be executable against property allotted during consolidation proceedings, and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to pass decrees in such matters.

1. This revision petition has been preferred against an order dated 3.2.1987 of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi whereby he allowed an appeal against an order dated 8.9.1986 of learned Executing Court dismissing an execution application observing that the decree could not be executed.

.2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the revision petition are that the three brothers i.e. Shri Bhagwana, Shri Rattan and Shri Hira were joint bhumidars and co-owners of 90 bigha and 12 biswa of land situated in the revenue estate of village Tikri .Kalan, Delhi. Shri Hira sold his 1/3rd undivided share in the joint holding to S/Shri Yashpal Singh, Dharampal Singh and Mahipal Singh vide a registered sale deed in their favour. Mutation with respect this 1/3rd share sold by Shri Hira in favour of vendees was sanctioned on 21.7.1973.

3. On 19.12.1973, the other two brothers of Shri Hira viz. Shri Bhagwana and Shri Rattan filed a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer that since they were in joint possession of the entire property owned by Shri Bhagwana, Shri Rattan and Shri Hira, they may not be dispossessed without due process of law. It was stated in the suit that the sale deed executed by Shri Hira in favour of above vendees was invalid being in violation of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. They made a prayer that the vendees and Shri Hira be restrained from interfering in their possession. In the suit, the details of the agricultural land of which they were co-owners to 1/3rd each were given mentioning khasra numbers and area of each khasra number. During the pendency of this suit, Consolidation proceedings and reallocation of holdings of land of individuals was undertaken by the government in the entire revenue estate of village Tikri Kalan. The joint holding of khatas of different owners, including that of Shri Bhagwana and Shri Rattan was separated by the Consolidation Officer on 22.6.1978. Due to separation of joint khatas and Consolidation proceedings, each of the landholder was allotted separate holding as per his land holdings before consolidation. In this process, S/Shri Yashpal, Dharampal and Mahipal, being recorded owners, in whose favour mutation had already been done in the revenue record, were also allotted separate plots in lieu of their holdings being plot number 517, 518 and 519 in lal dora of Village Tikri Kalan. After the allotment of these plots took place, the parties were put in possession of their respective plots, before the decision of civil suit. Aggrieved by the decision of the Consolidation Officer dated 22.6.1978 Shri Bhagwana and Shri Rattan filed a revision application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act 1948) before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi. This revision application was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 30.10.1980.

.4. In the meantime, the suit for injunction pending before the Court of Sub Judge was decreed in favour of Shri Bhagwana and Shri Rattan on 24.9.1979. The learned Sub Judge also held that the sale deed was in violation of provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 so it was ineffective. He passed a decree of injunction that the plaintiffs (Shri Bhagwana and Shri Rattan) be not dispossessed from the land in question. However, the land i.e. different khasra numbers as mentioned in the suit, was not in existence or in possession of plaintiffs at the time of passing decree. The plaintiffs (respondent no. 1 and 2 herein) had not taken steps to file an amendment application before the Court of Sub Judge for bringing the change in events on record and to modify the plaint so as to bring on record the Consolidation proceedings as undertaken by the Consolidation Officer. Neither the fact of filing a revision by the respondents against order of Consolidation Officer, was brought on record. An appeal was preferred by the present petitioner and his brothers i.e. vendees against the order dated 24.9.1979 of Sub Ju