RANJIT SINGH Vs. KAMALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 25.4.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, upholding the order of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh dated 22.7.2000. The Civil Judge had dismissed the objections of the JD- petitioners in the execution application filed by the decree-holder- respondents.

(2.) IN 1991 one Sadhu Singh suffered a decree in favour of the JD-petitioners in respect of the land in dispute. The aforementioned decree was successfully challenged by the decree-holder-respondents and on 30.1.1999, the trial Court vide his judgment and decree setside the collusive decree suffered by Sadhu Singh. In the execution application filed by the decree-holder-respondents, objection raised by the JD-petitioners is that in fact Sadhu Singh had nothing to do with the land and the land was owned by one Harnam Kaur, who had executed a valid will date 21.2.1993 in their favour. The aforementioned objection raised by the JD-petitioners has been rejected on the principal ground that the will dated 21.2.1993 did not see the light of the day till the filing of these objections. The operative part of the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge reads as under :-

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel at some length, I am of the considered view that the findings recorded by both the Courts below do not call for any interference because once the JD-petitioners have once taken advantage of a collusive decreed suffered by Sadhu Singh, then a new plea cannot be set up by them on the basis of the will dated 21.2.1993. Had it been a fact that Harbans Kaur was the owner of the property, then JD-petitioners would have got the mutation of inheritance sanctioned on the basis of the will after the death of Harnam Kaur. There is nothing on record to show as to how Harnam Kaur was the owner of the property. Therefore, the objections filed by the JD-petitioners have been rightly dismissed by the Courts below.