JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhan, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by Maghar Singh decree-holder (hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder). The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are as under :-
Kaka Singh judgment debtor (hereinafter referred to as the judgment debtor) sold the house in dispute situated at Kurali to Maghar Singh on. 25.11,1982 for a total consideration of Rs. 30.000/-. Judgment debtor took the house in dispute on lease from the decree holder at a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. Since the rent was not paid by the judgment debtor, an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by the decree holder on 2.6.1983. The ejectment petition filed by the decree holder succeeded and an order of ejectment was passed against the judgment debtor on 11.1.1984. Harmesh Pal Singh and Devinder Singh sons of judgment debtor filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C. for being impleaded as a party in the ejectment petition which was dismissed as they were not found to be necessary parties to the ejectment petition. The order of ejectment was ex parte against the judgment debtor. Neither an application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed nor any appeal carried to the Appellate Court.
2. Harmesh Pal Singh and Devinder Singh filed a suit in the court of competent jurisdiction challenging the sale effected on 25.11.1982 by their father, judgment debtor, in favour of the decree holder on the ground that the property in dispute was H. U. F. property and ancestral in nature and the same could not be sold without legal necessity and due consideration. They further claimed to be the owners and in possession of the property in dispute. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 14.1.1988. An appeal was carried against the judgment and decree which was dismissed on 7.5.1988. The findings recorded in the suit were that the property in dispute was neither ancestral nor H. U. F. property ; the sale was found to be valid and which consideration ; plaintiffs were held not to be owners but they were found to be in possession of the property in dispute and that they could not be dispossessed from the property in dispute except in accordance” with law.
3. Prior to the filing of the suit by Hirmssh Pal Singh and . Devinder Singh sons of the judgment debtor, the decree holder had filed an execution application in pursuance to the orders of ejectment passed in his favour by the Rent Controller on 11.1.1984. On the filing of the suit by Harmeshpal Singh and his brother Devinder Singh, the execution filed by the decree holder was ordered to be kept in abeyance and consigned to the record room. On the final disposal of the suit filed by the sons of judgment debtor on 7.5.1988, the decree holder filed an application on 10.5.1988 for revival of the execution proceedings which had been ordered to be keet in abeyance during the pendency of the suit. The execution application was accordingly revived.
4. Harmesh Pal Singh and Devinder Singh sons of the judgment debtor filed objections in the execution application stating therein that they were in possession of the house in dispute ; that their father suffered a collusive ex-parte ejectment order in favour of the decree holder ; that the judgment debtor was not in possession of any part of the property ; that the decree holder wanted to forcibly dispossess them from the property in dispute in execution proceedings and that they are not liable to be ejected in pursuance to the ejectment order passed against their father.
5. The decree holder opposed the objection petition. In the preliminary objection, it was stated that the objection petition is not maintainable and the same does not lie ; that the objectors have no locus standi to file the same as they do not claim any independent right in the suit property ; that in the suit filed by the objectors the finding recorded was that the property was H. U. F. property ; that the objectors were not the owner of the same ; that the possession was being taken in execution of a valid decree which had been passed in favour of the decree holder and thus the objectors were liable to be evicted from the property alongwith Kaka Singh judgment debtor ; that the objectors could not object to the execution of the decree only because they were found to be in possession of the property in their capacity as family members of judgment debtor Kaka Singh and that they were bound by the ejectment order.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for disposal of execution petition :-
1. Whether the objection petition filed by Harmesh Pal Singh and Devinder Singh objector is maintainable ? OPP.
2. Whether the objectors are liable to be evicted in execution of the ejectment order against Kaka Singh in view of the decree passed in their (objectors) favour in Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1 2 1988 decided on 7.5.1988 ? OPDH.
3. Relief.
7. Issue No. 1 was found in favour of the objectors and issue No. 2 was decided against the decree holders. Objections filed by Harmesh Pal Singh and Devinder Singh were accepted and the execution application dismissed. Aggrieved against the said order passed in the ejectment application, the decree holder has filed the present revision petition.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
9. The decree holder had purchased the property in dispute from Kaka Singh under a registered sale deed dated 25.11.1982 for Rs. 30,000/- paid before the Sub-Registrar. Kaka Singh was inducted as a tenant by the decree holder. Judgment debtor failed to pay the rent and the decree holder filed an application for ejectment of the tenant-J. D. from the house in dispute. An order of ejectment was passed in favour of the decree holder which became final between the parties. In the suit filed by Harmesh Pal Singh and Devinder Singh it was held that the property not to be H. U. F. Further finding was that the sale deed dated 25.11.1982 was a perfectly valid sale effected by the judgment debtor in favour of the decree holder being his self acquired property. It was further held that the sale was with consideration. The sons of judgment debtor were not found to be the owners in possession. From this, it is clear that the objectors did not have any independent right of residence in the property in dispute. There is no evidence on record to show that the objectors were residing in the property in dispute independently of the rights of the judgment debtor at the time of its sale or at the time when the judgment debtor was inducted as a tenant by the decree holder. Therefore, they were bound by the decree which have been passed against their father Kaka Singh J. D. The only relief which had been given in appeal by the District Judge in the suit filed by the objectors was that they could not be dispossessed except in accordance with law, Since the objectors were sitting in the property alongwith their father, they would also be bound by the decree which was passed against their father-judgment debtor and liable to be ejected in pursuance to the decree of ejectment passed against the judgment-debtor. They had no independent right to be in possession. They are not being ejected forcibly but in accordance with law in pursuance to a valid decree passed in favour of the decree holder. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the objectors had any independent right of possession of the house in dispute to the exclusion of their father J. D. It seems that the executing Court took a queer view that the decree holder could take possession of the house by adopting some other course of law than by executing the decree passed in his favour. The District Judge in the suit filed by the sons of the judgment debtor had given the relief only against forcible dispossession of the property in dispute and did not say a word in the decree which had been passed in favour of the decree holder and did not exclude “the ejectment of the objectors in execution of the decree”.
10. In the earlier suit filed by the sons of the judgment debtor, the only challenge was to the, sale deed dated 25.11.1982. No challenge was put to the ejectment order passed against the judgment debtor on 11.1. 1984. Under the circumstances, the District Judge could not give any relief regarding the execution application which had been filed in pursuance to the ejectment order passed against the judgment debtor on 11.1-1984. The ejectment order dated 11.1.1984 became final between the parties as no effort was made for getting the same set aside either in appeal or by filing an application for setting aside the ex-parte ejectment order passed against the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor has not come forward to file the objections but instead it seems he has put up his sons as a front to defeat the rights of the decree holder which he had acquired by sale of the property and the ejectment order in his favour.
11. Another factor which weighed with the executing Court was that there was litigation pending between the judgment debtor and his sons which was proved from copy of the judgment dated 19.6.1988 Exhibit 02 which was a petition filed by. him under Section 125 Cr P. C. for obtainining maintenance from his sons It was. stated in this petition that he was residing at Ropar at the relevant time and not at Kurali in the house in dispute. The subsequent litigation it seems again was a part of the same decision in order to defeat the rights of decree holder in the property in dispute which had accrued to him by way of sale of the property and the decree passed in his favour. The sons of the decree holder having failed in getting the sale deed dated 25.11.1982 set aside put up the present frivolous objections which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
12. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is accepted with costs, the impugned order of the executing Court is set aside and the objection petition filed by the objectors is dismissed. Costs are assessed at Rs. 1,000/-.