In an objection proceeding under Order 21, Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (old), the burden of proving that the objectors are obstructing the execution of the decree at the instigation of the judgment-debtors lies on the decree-holders.

1. This litigation relates to land comprised in three khasra numbers, i. e., five marlas in khasra No. 1021, two marlas in khasra No. 1023 and 11 marlas in khasra No. 1019 situate in village Batala Gharbi. The decree-holder respondents obtained a decree for possession of the entire land in dispute against the judgment-debtor-respondents. The suit in which the decree was passed had been based on the allegation that the sale of different pieces of land in favour of Gurdial Singh and Ajaib Singh judgment-debtor-respondents by Harbans Lal respondent in his purported capacity of an attorney of the then owner of the land were unauthorised as the power of attorney in favour of Harbans Lal had been cancelled before the sales were effected. Harbans Lal attorney appeared in the suit and admitted the allegations of the plaintiff-decree-holders. Gurdial Singh vendee did not appear in spite of service and the suit proceeded against him ex parte. Ajaib Singh vendee put in appearance but did not contest the suit. These were the circumstances in which the decree now under execution was passed. When the decree was sought to be executed, it was reported that the petitioners before me were in possession. These petitioners filed objections against the execution of the decree on or about 25.07.1976. Objections against the execution of the decree are reproduced below:

"(a) That the suit between the parties is a collusive one and the J. D. defendants had suffered a decree in respect of the property in which they have got no right, title or interest. This was a fraudulent device of the parties to the present suit to arm the plaintiffs D. Hs. with some sort of authority to take possession of the suit land either with the help of force or illegal police help on the basis of the warrant of possession issued by this Hon ble Court.

(b) That the present objectors are not a party to the suit and are not bound by the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs D. Hs. They being rightfully in possession of the suit property cannot be ejected therefrom on the basis of a decree passed against some third person. The present objectors are in actual possession in their own right.

(c) That the factum of the possession of the present objector is well within the knowledge of the present decree-holders. In fact they had filed a suit No. 240 in the Court of Shri O. P. Garg, Sub Judge IInd Class, Batala, for the possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 1019 against the present objectors. The suit of the present plaintiffs as against the present objectors was dismissed with costs by the said Court on 20-8-1975.

Similarly a suit for possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 1023 was filed by the present plaintiffs against the present objectors in the Court of Sh. M.S. Chawla, Sub Judge IInd Class, Batala, and the same was also withdrawn by the present plaintiffs on 16-1-1976.

(d) That the plaintiffs D. Hs. have got no right, title or interest in the suit property."

In the corresponding paragraph of the written reply (to the objections) filed by the decree-holders it was contended as below:-

"(a) Sub-para (a) is totally incorrect. It is denied that the suit was collusive between the parties. It is further denied that there was any fraudulent device between the parties to file the present suit The rest of the sub-para contains wrong allegations and is denied by the decree-holder.

(b) Sub-para (b) is also absolutely wrong. The objectors are neither in possession nor they have got any interest or title to the decreed land. It is denied that the objectors are in actual possession of the land in dispute in their own right. It appears that the previous J. Ds. have colluded with the objectors and they have set up the present objectors to cause harassment and delay to the execution of the present decree as well as to the decree-holder.

(c) Sub-para (c) of the objection petition is wrong. It is denied that the objectors are in possession of the property in dispute. As subm