Transfer of interest by one of the joint decree holders in favor of the judgment debtor extinguishes the decree to the extent of the interest transferred, and the remaining decree holders are entitled to symbolic possession only.

T. R. Handa, J.—This petition in revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure raises a simple but interesting question of law.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition do not appear to be in dispute and may be briefly sketched like this: S/Shri Raghunandan Purshotam Chand, Prakash Chand and Dewan Chand, respondents Nos. 1 to 4, were joint owners in equal shares of a piece of land measuring 3 kanals and 15 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 472 as per Jamabandi for the year 1962-63 of Tika and Mauza Moodla Khas, Tebsil Kangra. In the year 1968 these respondents filed a civil suit against the present petitioners for possession of a small area measuring 3 sarshais only forming part of the aforesaid Khasra No. 472 on the allegation that the petitioners had illegally encroached upon this much portion of Khasra No. 472. A consent decree for possession in respect of the area of 3 sarshais forming part of Khasra No. 472 as claimed in the suit, was passed in favour of the respondents on 7-12-1968, though the contention of the petitioners was that they had not encroached upon any part of Khasra No. 472.

3. Later, the respondents took out execution of the decree and prayed that they be put in actual possession of the decretal land by demolition of the superstructure raised thereon by the petitioners. The executing court appointed a local commissioner in order to ascertain whether the petitioners were in actual possession of any portion of Khasra No. 472 and the local commissioner after taking measurement on the spot made a report that an area measuring 1/2 Sarshais of the decretal land only was under the possession of the petitioners and on which some construction had teen raised. The respondents-decree-holders wanted actual possession of that area by demolition of the superstructure. The petitioners, however, raised an objection that since the decree did not give any direction regarding demolition of the superstructure, the executing court had no jurisdiction to order demolition and to deliver possession of the land by demolishing the superstructure. This objection prevailed with the executing court, which vide its order dated 19-5-1975, dismissed the execution petition, holding that the decree was inexecutablc since it gave no direction with respect to the demolition of the superstructure.

4. The respondents preferred an appeal against the order of the executing court which wis heard by the Additional District Judge, Dharamsala. The learned Additional District Judge did not agree with the view of the executing court that the decree was inexecutable and after holding that the decree was executable, he remanded the case to the executing court for executing the decree in accordance with law.

5. Here it may be pointed out that during the pendency of the appeal before the Additional District Judge, one of the respondents, namely Dewan Chand, respondent No. 4, transferred his undivided l/4th share in Khasra No. 472 of which the decretal land formed part, in favour of the present petitioners. Respondent No 4 further filed at application in the court of the Additional District Judge for bringing this fact to the notice of that court. The learned Additional District Judge while commenting upon the effect of this transfer of his share by respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioner, made certain observations in his judgment accepting the appeal. The material observations made by the learned Additional District Judge in this regard read :— "At this stage this court is not concerned with the fact as to in what mode the decree passed in favour of the appellants and respondent No. 4 could be executed, but the finding of the lower court that the decree had become inexecutable in the present form is wrong."

6. After the remand, the petitioners moved an application before the executing court bringing to its notice the fact that one of the decree holders, namely, respondent No, 4, bad transferred his share in Khasra No. 472 in their