Gurmej Kaur and Another vs Teja Singh and Another

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.—This revision petition has been filed by Smt. Gurmej Kaur and Smt. Chanan Kaur against the order of the District Judge, Jalandhar, dated 15-9-1986, dismissing the appeal of the Petitioners.

Briefly, the facts are that Surena was the owner of 101 kanals 11 marlas of land. He had a son Teja Singh and two daughters Smt. Gurmej Kaur and Smt Chanan Kaur Petitioners Smt. Situ Respondent is the wife of Teja Singh. Teja Singh and Situ filed a suit against Surena for possession of the land owned by him. The suit was decreed on 3-5-1984, as the Defendant admitted the claim of the Plaintiffs. On 1-6-1984, Surena died. The Petitioners challenged the decree passed in favour of the Respondents by a separate suit. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. In appeal by the Petitioners the decree of the trial Court has been set aside and the suit of the Petitioners has been decreed on 5-3-1987.

The Respondents started execution of the decree against Surena after his death. The Petitioners filed an objection in the executing Court that they could not be dispossessed in execution of the decree as the decree was not binding upon them and that the civil Court had granted injunction against the decree-holder. The objection petition was dismissed by the executing Court. In appeal the order of the executing Court was maintained. They have come up in revision against the said order to this Court.

Mr. Sarin, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has argued that the collusive decree dated 3-5-1984 has been held to be illegal void and ineffective by the appellate Court in the suit filed by the Petitioners and, therefore, the Respondents have no right to execute the same. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the Respondents, submits that second appeal against the judgment and decree of the appellate Court is pending in this Court and therefore, it cannot be said that the decree dated 3-5-1984 is void. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners challenges the statement of Mr. Jain and submits that no such appeal is pending in this Court.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and find force in the contention of Mr. Sarin. It is not disputed that the collusive decree obtained by the Respondents has been upset by the first appellate Court. If this is so, the Respondents have no right to execute that decree. Mr Jain has not filed the appeal himself nor he has been able to give the number of the R. S. A. which is alleged to have been filed by the Respondents in this Court. Even if it is assunted that an appeal is pending in this Court, that does not make any difference. The decree suffered by Surena has been held to be void by the judgment and decree dated 5-3-1987 and that decree has not been up set by this Court as yet Unless the said decree is upset, the Respondents are not entitled to execute the decree dated 3-5-198(sic). Mr. Jain has referred to Harijan Wood Workers v. Shrimati Maya Wati 1984 C L J (C. & Cr.) 212 and Gurdial Singh v. Ram Pal 1985 P. L. J. 139. Both the cases are distinguishable as the decrees sought to be executed in those cases had not been held to be void. Consequently, the ratio in those cases is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the revision petition with costs and hold that the Respondents are not entitled to execute the decree dated 3-5-1984. They shall, however, be entitled to execute the decree if judgment and decree dated 5-3-1987 is upset in appeal. Costs Rs. 400/-.