One decree-holder can execute a joint decree for the benefit of all decree-holders, even if opposed by one or more decree-holders, unless it is proved otherwise.

( 1 ) THIS is one of the oldest cases of this State which has come before this Court in second round. Original suit was filed in the year 1933 which was disposed of by this Court in first appeal on 11-8-1976. Thereafter execution proceedings started which were dismissed by the Additional civil Judge, Bulandshahr on 31-3-1978. The decree-holders have challenged the order of the additional Civil Judge in revision before this Court.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief, are that the decree sought to be executed which was finally passed by this Court in first appeal is for possession over the vacant land and also over the constructed portions after demolishing the constructions. The decree is also for mesne profits from the date of the decree in the suit. Soon after the passing of this decree by this Court one of the decree-holders Sri Shiv Raj Singh sold his share in the properties in dispute in favour of Smt. Rajni Singh, wife of Sri Suresh. Chandra Singh, one of the judgment-debtors. The decree was put in execution by Dharam Raj Singh on behalf of all the decree-holders for the benefit of all of them. Two objections were filed against the execution of the decree, one by Smt. Rajni Singh and the other by Shri Shiv Raj Singh. Both the objections were almost on identical grounds. It was contested on several grounds. One of the grounds was that the execution was not for their benefit and was liable to be dismissed.

( 3 ) THE execution court held that the decree-holders are entitled to mesne profits of three years only from the date of the decree. The execution application for mesne profits from the date of the suit and for possession was dismissed as the constructions in dispute could not be demolished and also on the ground of limitation as well as on the ground that the decree executed by Dharam raj Singh was not for the the benefit of all the decree-holders including Thakur Shiv Raj Singh. 3-A. When this case came up before me for hearing I referred the question of limitation to be decided by a larger Bench as a similar question was already referred to in another case. Now the division Bench has returned the case with the finding that the decision of the execution court that the execution application was barred by limitaion, was incorrect. Now the question of limitation is no more in dispute.

( 4 ) THE case has been argued by Shri R. N. Singh, Advocate for the applicants and Sri Shanti bhushan, Senior Advocate for the opposite parties with great vehemence on the other questions involved in this case which are as under :

(i) Whether some of the decree-holders can legally execute the whole decree for the benefit of all the decree-holders even if it is opposed by one or more of the decree-holders (ii) Whether the decree-holders are entitled to get actual possession over the land in dispute after demolition of the buildings which are in possession of the tenants? (iii) Whether the decree-holders are entitled to the mesne profits from the date of the suit or decree?

( 5 ) AS regards the first question, it may be stated that the decree was in favour of a number of persons including Thakur Shiv Raj Singh. The decree was put in execution by Thakur Dharam raj Singh impleading all the decree-holders including Thakur Shiv Raj Singh as the executants against the judgment-debtors. On the basis of the sale-deed executed on behalf of Thakur Shiv rai Singh in favour of Smt. Rajni Singh, the vendee stepped in his shoes as one of the decree-holders although it was alleged that the suit for cancellation of the said sale-deed filed by the sons of Thakur Shiv Raj Singh is still pending in the Civil Court. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the decree put in execution by Thakur Dharam Rai Singh, one of the decree-holders was for the benefit of all the decree-holders in whose favour it was passed in this case. Merely because one of the decree-holders or his transferee has put an objection docs not mean that it was not f