The decree for possession was interpreted as a decree for joint possession, and the rights of co-sharers were upheld in accordance with Order 21 Rule 35(2), CPC.

V.M.Jain, J.

1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 2.5.1998 passed by the executing Court dismissing the objection petition filed by the judgment debtors.

2. The facts relevant for the decision of this revision petition are that Tana (plaintiff) had filed a suit for declaration and injunction against Hazara Singh, defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff amended the plaint and converted the suit into a suit for declaration with possession as consequential relief, alleging therein that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant had taken forcible possession of the suit land. In the plaint, it was alleged by the plaintiff that he was the owner in possession of 1/2 share of the total land measuring 192 kanals 1 marla and that the defendant had obtained a civil Court decree dated 4.1.1984 with a view to defraud the plaintiff and that the said decree was passed on fraud and misrepresentation and was not binding on the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property before passing of the said decree and was still in possession thereof and the defendant was threatening to dispossess him and to alienate the same on the basis of the said decree. Subsequently, by way of amendment to the plaint, as referred to above, it was alleged by the plaintiff that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant took forcible possession of the suit land. The said suit was contested by the defendant. Finally, the Civil Court decree dated 3.4.1991 was passed by the trial Court. The operative part of the said decree reads as under:-

"It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff succeeds. A decree for declaration that the judgment and decree dated 4.1.1984 passed in Civil Suit No. 13 of 1984 entitled Hazara Singh v. Tana Singh is null and void being based on fraud and for possession of the suit land is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs."

3. In the said decree, the details of the land measuring 192 kanals 1 marla had been given and it was no-where mentioned that the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration and injunction and later on for possession as consequential relief only in respect of 1/2 share in the suit land measuring 192 kanals 1 marla.

4. During the execution proceedings, warrants of possession were issued in respect of land measuring 96 kanals 16 marlas (a part of the total land measuring 192 kanals 1 marla), on the basis of the list of property submitted by Tana, decree holder. At one stage, "Malkana" possession of the land measuring 96 kanals, being 1/2 of 192 kanals 1 marla, was given to the plaintiff, as per rapat roznamcha dated 31.10.1994. Later on, warrants of actual possession were issued in respect of the said land measuring 96 kanals 16 marlas. Thereupon, the present petitioners, who are the legal representatives of Hazara Singh, defendant, filed an objection petition against the issuance of warrants of actual possession, alleging therein that the decree under execution was for 1/2 share in the land measuring 192 kanals 1 marla and not of specific khasra Nos. and as such the warrants of actual possession could not be issued and only symbolic possession could be ordered to be delivered in execution of the decree, which had already been executed as per Daily Diary Report dated 31.10.1994 and as such, the objection be allowed and the warrants of actual possession be recalled. These objections were contested by the plaintiff decree-holder. After hearing both the sides, the learned executing Court dismissed the objection petition of the objectors vide order dated 2.5.1998. Aggrieved against this order of the trial Court, the objectors filed the present revision petition in this Court.

5. Notice of motion was issued. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused.

6. At the outset, learned counsel for the objector-petitioners submitted before me that even though the plaintiff had filed the s