Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that decree was for joint possession, and therefore, possession of land of specific Khasra numbers cannot be delivered to DH-respondent in execution of the decree. The contention, on first blush, appears to be very forceful and attractive, but the contention is devoid of merit. During pendency of first appeal against judgment and decree of the trial court, joint land measuring 52 kanals 01 marla was partitioned among the co-sharers and in the partition, land measuring 08 kanals comprising of Khasra Nos.21/11 min.(617) and 21/21/1 min.(1-3) has fallen to the share of JDs. Consequently, in view of partition of the total joint land, warrant of joint possession could not be issued by the Executing Court because the other co-sharers of the joint land are not bound to deliver possession to the DH, when the land has been partitioned. The aforesaid 08 kanals land comprising of specific Khasra numbers has fallen to the share of JDs in partition of the total joint land and consequently, the decree has to be executed regarding the same. It may be added that these specific Khasra numbers were also mentioned even in the plaint. Consequently, there is no infirmity, much less illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the trial court on this count, while directing issuance of warrant of actual possession of the aforesaid specific land.
