CR No.1343-2016(O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.1343-2016(O&M)

Date of Order: 23.05.2022

Bhagwan Kaur (deceased) through her LRs

..Petitioner

Versus

Gurdial Singh and others

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate, with

Mr. Dhruv Mittal, Advocate

for the petitioner

Mr. Surjit Singh Salar, Advocate

for respondent no.6 and 7.

Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate,

for the applicant-Mr. Jagga Mal (CM-25614-CII-2018)

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

The decree holder assails the correctness of the order passed by

the Executing Court while directing her to claim possession by way of

partition of the property.

Some facts are required to be noticed.

Sh. Ganda Singh had left behind three natural heirs, namely,

Sh. Randhir Singh, Sh. Kartar Singh and Smt. Balbir Kaur. Smt. Bhagwan

Kaur (the petitioner, who has now died) was widow of late Sh. Randhir

Singh who has filed a suit against Sh. Gudial Singh, Sh. Sarabjit Singh, Sh.

Jagar Singh, Sh. Bahadur Singh, Sh. Jagdev Singh, claiming a decree of

declaration that she is the exclusive owner and consequently, is entitled to

possession of ½ share of the land which originally belonged to Smt. Kartar

Kaur widow of late Sh. Kartar Singh. It is claimed that she is already owner

of the remaining share. The aforesaid suit was decreed on 29.05.1985. The

NARESH KUMAR

2022.06.06 11:55

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No.1343-2016(O&M)

-2-

operative part of the aforesaid judgment is extracted as under:-

“43. In view of my findings on above issues and in view

of my above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby

decreed against the defendants to the effect that the

plaintiff is declared to be the exclusive owner of the

property in dispute as detailed in the cause title of the

plaint and is entitled to the possession of the suit

property. As a consequential relief the defendants no.1

and 2 are permanently restrained from alienating the suit

property in any manner whatsoever to anyone else.

Accordingly the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed

against the defendants with costs. This decree shall be

treated as exparte decree against the defendants no.3, 4

and 5. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be

consigned to the record room (Judicial) Patiala.”

An appeal preferred by Sh. Gurdial Singh (defendant in the suit)

is pending , however, the interim order was vacated on 04.09.2000. Thus,

there is no impediment in implementation of the decree.

The respondents are claiming to be co-sharers on the strength of

a sale deed executed by Smt. Sukhminder Kaur daughter of Smt. Balbir

Kaur. In a separate suit, Smt. Balbir Kaur has also been held entitled to

1/4^th share against which a Regular Second Appeal is pending before this

Court.

It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the

previous objections filed by Sh. Ram Singh, grand father of the objectors

were dismissed and the aforesaid order has been upheld by this Court.

The Executing Court has directed the delivery of symbolic

possession to the petitioner while relegating her to the remedy of partition of

the property by the revenue authorities. The petitioner has filed the present

revision petition challenging the correctness of the aforesaid order.

This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the

parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.

NARESH KUMAR

2022.06.06 11:55

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No.1343-2016(O&M)

-3-

A miscellaneous application has been filed by Sh. Jagga Mal

claiming to be purchaser of a specific parcel of the property measuring 30

bighas and 1 biswa from Sh. Randhir Singh, dated 08.09.1971.

The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner submits

that he will not execute the decree qua the land purchased by Sh. Jagga Mal

through sale deed dated 08.09.1971. H