4.3 After considering submissions of both the sides, the execution petition was dismissed by the Court on 07.02.2015. It was observed by the executing Court that petitioner/decree-holder did not have any attorney in her favour from Sharanjit Singh and Neelam Goyal so as to contest the execution petition on their behalf and therefore, she did not have the right to contest the petition as it is only they, who could have filed the execution for redressal of their grievances, if any. Apart from this, Decree-holder-Rakbir Kaur had admitted her signature on the affidavit (Ex.D1), as per which it was specifically mentioned that petitioner had surrendered the plots allotted to Sharanjit Singh and Neelam Goyal and in lieu thereof, plots be allotted to other persons and that she will be fully responsible for any claim by above said Sharanjit Singh & Neelam Goel and as such, petitioner was estopped to claim the plots allotted to them. Ld. Executing Court applied the principle of estoppel in this regard and also held that petitioner could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate. Executing Court further found that no oral or documentary evidence was brought on record by the petitioner to show that there was any deficiency in the area of plots allotted to her and other five persons as per clause Nos.2 and 3 of the compromise. Neither at the time of allotment nor later on, the petitioner and others had ever objected about the lesser area and that now after 11 years, she was claiming that lesser area was allotted, which could not be believed. With all these findings, the objections filed by the JD-Society were accepted and the execution was dismissed.
