RSA No.957 of 2014 (O&M)

[ 1 ]

*****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA No.957 of 2014 (O&M)

Date of decision:19.02.2014

Mam Chand and others

...Appellants

Versus

Chandgi Ram and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate,

for the appellants.

*****

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

The plaintiffs are in appeal who had filed a suit for declaration

that they are co-sharers in the land measuring 01 Kanal 07 Marlas and 106

Kanals 16 Marlas, situated in village Kanina, Tehsil and District

Mohindergarh. They had prayed that mutation no.4508 dated 17.04.1990,

by which the suit land has been exclusively mutated in the name of Net

Ram, father of defendants no.1 to 4, be set aside and also prayed for

consequential relief restraining the defendants from alienating/encroaching

upon the suit land beyond their share.

Counsel for the appellants has submitted that four brothers,

namely, Mukh Ram, Daya Ram, Buja Ram and Net Ram, all sons of Jai

Karan, purchased certain land vide registered sale deed dated 28.03.1958

vinod kumar

2014.02.25 15:01

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

RSA No.957 of 2014 (O&M)

[ 2 ]

*****

from Hari Ram and Harnam Singh. Since their vendors sold more than their

share, one Thakarsi S/o Maan Singh filed suit regarding 42 Kanals 14

Marlas of land which was decreed on 14.04.1962 and 42 Kanals 14 Marlas

land was withdrawn from Mukh Ram etc. In this regard, Mukh Ram etc.

filed suit for recovery of `4,500/- against their vendors which was decreed

on 09.10.1975. They filed execution petition no.7 dated 06.02.1976 and

when despite the attachment of the property of judgment-debtor, nobody

gave any bid, Net Ram, one of the decree-holders, obtained permission of

the Court to give the bid. His bid was accepted for a sum of `4,450/-, sale

certificate was issued to him and the execution petition was dismissed by

the Executing Court having been satisfied.

It is argued by counsel for the appellants that no evidence has

been brought on record to the effect that Net Ram had given the other

decree-holders their shares out of the money decree of `4,500/- as no money

was ever paid to the decree-holders out of the sale proceeds, therefore, the

title to the property, purchased by Net Ram, was in fact in favour of all the

four brothers. On this premise, it is sought to be argued that when one of

the decree-holders gives the bid to purchase the attached property of the

judgment-debtors and no proof of payment qua the share of other decree-

holders has been given, the entire suit property of the judgment debtors

would go to other decree-holders as well.

Counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of the

Patna High Court in the case of Mt. Bibi Kaniz Ayesha and another v.

Mojibul Hassan Khan and others, AIR (29) 1942 Patna 230, but the facts

vinod kumar

2014.02.25 15:01

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

RSA No.957 of 2014 (O&M)

[ 3 ]

*****

of that case are altogether different from the facts of the present case

because in the present case, the decree is sought to be executed by all the

decree-holders and with the permission of the Court one of the decree-

holders has purchased the attached property of the judgment-debtors and

sale certificate was issued in his favour.

Once the execution filed by the decree-holders, pertaining to

recovery of the amount, is consigned as satisfied, it has to be presumed that

the amount deposited by the purchaser at the time of issuance of sale

certified to him of the attached property of the judgment-debtors was duly

distributed to the decree-holders and after purchase of the attached property

of the judgment-debtors, the person who may be one of the decree-holders

would become the owner thereof and the other decree-holders cannot claim

a share therein.

No other point has been raised by counsel for the appellants