KHAZAN SINGH (D) BY LRS. versus GURBHAJAN SINGH AND ORS.

KHAZAN SINGH (D) BY LRS. versus GURBHAJAN SINGH AND ORS.

The Executing Court found and properly recorded, with the consent of both parties, that the kothas marked 'EFGH' were not part of the decretal property, and delivery of possession was effected in accordance with the warrant excluding these structures. The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in interfering with these findings, as no illegality or material irregularity was shown.

Parties
Appellant: Khazan Singh (D) by LRs.; Respondents: Gurbhajan Singh and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No. 1186/1984
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Execution of Decree, Possession of Property, Revisional Jurisdiction, Interpretation of Decree
Civil Procedure Execution of Decree Possession of Property Revisional Jurisdiction Interpretation of Decree

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khazan Singh (D) by LRs.

Appellant

Gurbhajan Singh and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No. 1186/1984

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decree holder is entitled to possession of 'kothas' marked 'EFGH' in the site plan in execution of the decree dated 14.01.1953
  2. 2 Whether the finding of the Executing Court that the kothas were outside the decretal property was correct and could be revised by the High Court

Ratio Decidendi

The Executing Court found and properly recorded, with the consent of both parties, that the kothas marked 'EFGH' were not part of the decretal property, and delivery of possession was effected in accordance with the warrant excluding these structures. The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in interfering with these findings, as no illegality or material irregularity was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court set aside.

Orders

  • Applications for impleadment and substitution rejected.
  • Appeal allowed; no order as to costs.