The main legal point established is that where there is a decree for joint possession, only symbolic possession is to be delivered, and seeking physical possession would require filing a separate suit for possession/partition.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 10.01.2018 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa vide which the objections (Annexure P-4), filed by the petitioner in the execution petition, filed by the respondent, were dismissed.

2. The facts, briefly put, are that one Mahinder Singh had three sons namely Hardeep Singh, Paramjit Singh and Sardul Singh and one daughter namely Kailash Kaur. The wife of Mahinder Singh namely Rajinder Kaur was the owner of a house situated in Ward No. 16, Mansa. Her husband Mahinder Singh predeceased her. Thereafter, a dispute arose between the sons and daughter of Mahinder Singh on one side and the sons and daughters of Hardeep Singh son of Mahinder Singh on the other side with regard to the house of Rajinder Kaur as also some FDRs and other deposits. Accordingly, a suit was filed by respondent No. 1-plaintiff Tejinder Singh son of Hardeep Singh through his legal representatives (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent No. 1-plaintiff’) against the present petitioner-defendant No. 1 Paramjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner-defendant No. 1) and the other sons and daughter of Mahinder Singh as also against brother and sisters of respondent No. 1-plaintiff Tejinder Singh. The suit sought declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the house in dispute and the deposits etc.

3. This suit came to be dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa on 06.04.2009.

4. An appeal was preferred by respondent No. 1-plaintiff which was allowed vide judgment dated 28.05.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Addl. District Judge, Mansa. It was held that respondent No. 1-plaintiff alongwith his brother and sisters was entitled for 1/4th share in the disputed house and other movable and immovable property of Rajinder Kaur and the other sons and daughter of Mahinder Singh would also be entitled to 1/4th share each in the said property on the basis of natural succession.

5. A regular second appeal was preferred by the present petitioner-defendant No. 1 which was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.03.2016 (Annexure P-2).

6. An SLP is stated to have been filed against the said order dated 17.03.2016 which was also dismissed, as has been stated during the course of arguments.

7. An execution petition (Annexure P-3) was filed by respondent No. 1- plaintiff through his Legal Representatives against petitioner-defendant No. 1 and other son and daughter of Mahinder Singh. Objections (Annexure P-4) to the execution petition were filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 1 and the other son and daughter of Mahinder Singh which have been dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 10.01.2018 (Annexure P-6).

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No. 1 submitted that the Executing Court erred in dismissing the objections. It was contended that the judgment and decree in favour of respondent No. 1-plaintiff was only a decree of declaration and at best it was a decree of joint possession and, therefore, warrants of possession could not have been issued and only symbolic possession could have been delivered as per the provisions of Order 21 Rule 35 (2) CPC. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Kumar and Another vs. Bhale Ram and Others, 1990 Civil Court Cases 541.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent- defendant contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the Executing Court could not have gone beyond the decree. Learned counsel contended that the objections filed by the present petitioner-defendant No. 1 were devoid of merit and were, therefore, rightly dismissed by the Executing Court.

11. I have given my thoughtful considerati