The High Court dismissed the appellant's execution appeal after he conceded that he had sold his share in the disputed property to a third party. Consequently, the court held he was not entitled to any relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
110+315 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CM-9436-C-2024 in/and ESA-21-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 16, 2024
Surinder Singh … Appellant
Versus
Narinder Singh and others …Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: - Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Shivoy Dhir, Advocate for respondent No.1.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)
CM-9436-C-2024
This is an applica on moved by the appellant to place on record the copy of sale deed dated 15.09.2016, in compliance of the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by this Court as Annexure A-6.
Allowed.
Annexure A-6 is taken on record.
ESA-21-2022 (O&M)
On 30.07.2024, following order was passed by this Court:-
“Appellant herein is the second party objector in the execu�on pending before learned Execu�ng Court. Suit for specific performance filed by plain�ff – DH (respondent No.1 – Narinder Singh herein) was decreed against defendants- Jasbir Singh and Mohinder Singh- JDs (now respondents No.2 and 3). The decree is regarding a plot with construc�on measuring 05 marla as 1/26 shares from the land measuring 06 Kanal–09 Marlas, comprised in Khasra No.1868(4-0) and 3574/1869(2-9). In the execu�on filed by the decree-holder, the objec�ons filed by the JDs were earlier dismissed by the Execu�ng Court. Then the appellant came forward with his third party objec�on sta�ng that he was in possession of the property in dispute. Said objec�ons have been dismissed by Execu�ng Court under order dated 06.09.2019, which has been upheld by First Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 05.05.2022.
Sarita Rani 2024.09.16 05:28 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
CM-9436-C-2024 in/and ESA-21-2022 (O&M)
- 2 -
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn a<en�on towards jamabandi Annexure P.4 and contends that the appellant; as well as the defendants (JDs) to the suit were co-sharers in the suit property and none of them is recorded to be in possession of any specific por�on. However, it is the appellant- third party objector, who is in possession of the shop as is described in the map Annexure A.5. A<en�on is further drawn towards the fact that boundaries of the shop under the possession of the appellant (Annexure A.5) are different from property, which is subject ma<er of the decree and that in the garb of decree in his favour, DH wants to take possession of property in possession of appellant.
It is further contended that without even framing the issues on the objec�ons filed by the appellant, both the Courts below have dismissed the said objec�ons, which has caused great prejudice to him.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – DH seeks �me so as to assist this Court to show as to whether his vendors i.e. the JDs were in possession of the suit property, which could enable them to deliver possession thereof to decree holder- respondent No.1. Adjourned to 05.08.2024.
To be shown in urgent list.”
“In response to the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by this Court, leaned counsel for respondent No.1 has placed on record the copy of jamabandi for the year 2008-2009 to contend that the appellant herein – Surinder Singh was having 1/182 share in the property in dispute, i.e. khasra No.3574/1869 and that he has already sold the said share to one Surjit Kaur wife of Mohinder Singh regarding which muta�on No.9794 was sanc�oned on 16.09.2016, which is also reflected in the said jamabandi in the remarks column.
In response to the above, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant-objector is s�ll in possession of the shop in dispute. However, it is fairly conceded by him that the appellant has sold his share in disputed khasra number.
Sarita Rani 2024.09.16 05:28 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
CM-9436-C-2024 in/and - 3 - ESA-21-2022 (O&M)
In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant is directed to place on record the copy of the sale deed, which he executed in favour of Smt. Surjit Kaur and regarding which muta�on No.9794 as referred in the jamabandi, was sanc�oned. Adjourned to 16.09.2024.”
Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby
dismissed.
September 16, 2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
Sarita Rani 2024.09.16 05:28 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a third-party objector in execution proceedings retains any right to relief after conceding he sold his share in the disputed property.
Surinder Singh
Narinder Singh
Jasbir Singh
Mohinder Singh
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
