Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Kumar vs Jetha Ram And Ors on 22 December, 2022
C.R. No. 5890 of 2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 5890 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of decision : 22.12.2022
...
Sandeep Kumar
................Petitioner
vs.
Jetha Ram and others
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan
Present: Mr. K.S. Godara, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate for respondents No. 1, 4 and 5.
...
H. S. Madaan, J.
1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that, plaintiffs Jetha
Ram, Ranjeet, Bhadar - sons, Teeja Devi and Rukma - daughters, of
Puran Ram, had filed a suit against defendant Sandeep Kumar,
seeking possession of plot measuring 8 Malra, situated at village
Bhuratwala, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa, on the averments that
defendant had been in un-authorized possession of the plot and had
raised construction thereon. In that suit the plaintiffs had claimed
that the plot in question belonged to their deceased father Puran Ram
and after his death it has been inherited by them. The un-authorised
possession of the defendant was revealed as a result of demarcation
carried out by revenue authorities on 15.7.2016. The plaintiffs crave
1 of 5
that a direction be issued to the defendant to remove the construction
and then possession of the vacant plot be got delivered to them.
Various other ancillary reliefs were also sought.
2. On getting notice, the defendant appeared and filed
written statement contesting the suit contending that his father had
purchased the suit property from one Krishan, for a sum of
Rs.1,27,000/- about 20 years ago and since then they have been in
possession of the plot, having raised construction thereon, with
which the plaintiffs have no concern. The defendant prayed for
dismissal of the suit. Issues on merits were framed. Parties were
afforded adequate opportunities to lead their evidence. After hearing
the arguments, the trial Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Ellenabad, gave issue wise findings, observing that the defendant had
encroached upon the plot of plaintiffs, in that way, his possession is
illegal and the plaintiffs have got a right to get possession of the
same, being lawful owners. Therefore, suit of the plaintiffs was
decreed vide judgment dated 20.3.2019.
3. No appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the same has become final and
binding between the parties. The plaintiffs -decree holders had filed
an execution application, for getting possession of the plot in
question, wherein the judgment debtor - defendant, put in appearance
and filed an application for withdrawing the warrants of possession
qua share of decree holders - Ranjeet and Bhadar, stating that they
had compromised the matter with the judgment debtor. Such decree
2 of 5
holders had appeared before the Executing Court on 21.11.2022 and
made a joint statement that since they had compromised the matter
with judgment debtor, they wanted to withdraw the execution of their
shares in the suit property measuring 8 Marla, which is still joint.
However, the Executing Court, vide order dated 24.11.2022,
declined that request observing that if the judgment debtor has
compromised the matter with the decree holders No. 2 and 3, then he
has remedy to get partition of the suit land done and the application
had been filed just to delay the execution of warrants of possession.
The application was not maintainable and the Executing Court cannot
go beyond the decree. It is required to execute the decree. This order
left the judgment debtor - defendant aggrieved and he has filed the
present revision petition, challenging that order.
4. The judgment debtors Nos. 1, 4, and 5 have also put in
appearance in the Court.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has
contended that the warrants of possession issued by the Executing
Court be not executed in view of the fact that two of the decree
holders, namely, Ranjeet and Bhadar, have compromised the matter
with the revision petitioner - judgment debtor, whereas this request is
being opposed vehemently by counsel representing respondents No.
1, 4 and 5, stating that the judgment debtor wants to delay the matter
by adopting such like tactics and no reason is there to withdraw the
warrants of possession or stay their execution.
6. After hearing the rival contentions, I find that since no
3 of 5
appeal was preferred by the defendant against the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court, he is bound by the same. He had
been asked to vacate the plot in suit and to hand over the possession
of the same to the plaintiffs, by removing his un-authorized and
illegal construction. He has also been restrained from raising further
construction over the suit land and from transferring the suit land in
favour of anybody else. Merely because two of the decree holders are
said to have entered into a compromise with judgment debtor -
defendant, the execution of the decree cannot be stalled. Even
otherwise, no document with regard to transfer of title in favour of
judgment debtor by decree holders Ranjeet and Bhadar comes out to
be there except copy of the affidavit executed by them.
7. Therefore, it would be failure of justice, if defendant,
who has been found to be in wrong possession of the plot belonging
to the plaintiffs, is able to retain that possession for such like reason.
As regards, the loss, which may be suffered by him on account of
demolition of the construction raised by the defendant, no sympathy
can be shown to him in that regard because he should have been
aware of all these facts, while grabbing / encroaching upon the land
of the plaintiffs and any sympathy shown to him would be counter
productive, encouraging the people to come in wrong possession of
properties of others and then get necessary benefit, praying for
leniency on the pretext of considerable financial loss being caused to
them, if they are made to end their wrongful possession.
4 of 5
8. There is no merit in the revision petition. The same
stands dismissed accordingly.
( H.S. Madaan )
22.12.2022 Judge
chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
5 of 5
