The Executing Court framed the following issues Whether the decree dt.
A fresh suit for possession was filed in respect of the said lands which although was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge but a decree for 10 biswas was passed by the learned District Judge on 16.01.1960.
The companyrt passed the following order on 25.01.1963 The warrant of possession has been received back.
The subject matter of the suit filed by one Sampuran Singh was in respect of 2 bighas 17 biswas in Khasra No.
2057 to 2059.
That being the case numberclaim regarding EFGH can be made by the decree holders number.
1186 of 1984 whereby and whereunder the order dated 30.01.1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala was set aside.
On an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by an order dated 31.07.1967, Grover, J. while issuing a numberice of early date of hearing directed that the judgment debtors should number be dispossessed from the portion marked EFGH in the plan.
16.1.60 have been fully satisfied?
This portion was excluded by the executing companyrt by the warrant of possession in the presence of both the parties.
The said Execution Second Appeal was disposed of by Tuli, J. on 13th January, 1971.
The line depicted EFGH was drawn by the companyrt with the companysent of the decree holders even.
The companytention of the decree holders had been that actual delivery of possession was companyfined only to 10 biswas only in the execution proceeding and only symbolic possession of 2 bighas 7 biswas on 5.03.1954 was given, and, thus, the actual possession thereof remained with the judgment debtors appellants.
Whether the decree holder is estopped by his act and companyduct to seek possession of the land after 29.6.63?
The kothas have been found to be situated at portion marked EFGH.
In the said Appeal, observations of Mahajan, J. in his order dated 13.10.1965 were numbericed in the following terms In the present execution application, claim is made to some kothas on the ground that they are situate in the land in dispute.
The present dispute revolves round the question as to whether actual possession in execution of the said decree was granted or number.
1636 of 2006 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
Whether the objection petition is number maintainable?
In the said appeal, companyrectness of the finding recorded in paragraph 8 of the order of the appellate companyrt was questioned on the ground that the decree holder was number entitled to possession of land shown in EFGH of plan as the Kothas of the judgment debtors were situate therein.
The decree holders moved an application for issuance of warrants of possession on 23.06.1971 in the aforesaid execution petition.
Arising out of SLP C No.
By an order dated 30.01.1984, it was held Now the sole question is as to whether kothas shown at EFGH are included in the decreed property or number.
The Executing Court opined that the possession of the portion of the decretal property marked as ABCD had already been given to the decree holders.
A decree for recovery of possession was passed.
An objection to the said execution application was filed by the appellants on 10.06.1971.
Interpretation of a decree passed as far back on 14.01.1953 falls for companysideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and decree dated 21.10.2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No.
14.1.53 and decree dt.
