- (1.) This is execution second appeal by Kaur Singh against Puran Singh and others from the judgment of Shri Joginder Singh Chatha, Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated December 9, 1970, confirming the judgment of Shrimati Bakshish Kaur, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Nabha dated July 16, 1970 dismissing the objections filed on behalf of Kaur Singh against the execution of the decree.
(2.) Facts leading to the appeal are as follows :- Agricultural land measuring 87 bighas and 2 biswas emerged after consolidation proceedings equal to an area of 135 kanals and 14 marlas. The land belonged to Dhiana. On his death, he left behind widow Smt. Zaidan, a son Mastu and a daughter Partapo. There are three sons of Partapo, namely Puran Singh, Sampuran Singh and Bakhtawar Singh. After the death of Dhiana, the land was inherited by Mastu. On the death of Mastu, his mother Smt. Zaidan succeeded it. Smt. Zaidan gifted the land in favour of her grandsons, Puran Singh, Sampuran Singh and Bakhtawar Singh. Partapo filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the alienation by gift made by Smt. Zaidan was not binding on her and for recovery of possession of the land. That suit was compromised on Harh 9, 2006 BK. corresponding to June 15, 1949. According to the terms of compromise, it was provided that so long as Smt. Zaidan lives, she would be entitled to enjoy only life estate and after her death, Partapo will also succeed as limited heir. It was specifically provided that neither of them shall have any power of alienation of the land and that after the death of Partapo, the land will be succeeded by her sons, Puran Singh, Sampuran Singh and Bakhtawar Singh. On May 1, 1965, Partapo sold the land to Kaur Singh appellant. Puran Singh and his two brothers instituted a suit challenging the alienation by sale by Partapo. It was pleaded in the suit that the alienation by Partapo was not binding on Puran Singh and others as according to the terms of compromise dated June 15, 1949, she was not entitled to alienate the property being a life-estate heir and on her death, they were entitled to succeed as absolute owners. On March 5, 1968, the parties compromised. The terms of the compromise were to the effect that the plaintiffs were to pay Rs. 29,200/- as price of the land, Rs. 800/- as sale expenses to Kaur Singh appellant and expenses of improvements effected by Kaur Singh to be determined by a Commissioner appointed by the Court. Payment of these three items was to be made on or before June 15, 1970. It was further provided that in case the plaintiffs-respondents failed to do so by the due date, their suit shall stand dismissed. After the costs of improvements effected, by the appellant had been determined by the Commissioner, final decree was drawn up on April 9, 1968. It was provided therein that the land in suit measuring 135 kanals and 14 marlas stood decreed in favour of plaintiffs -respondents against the defendant-appellant provided the sum of Rs. 32,727/- all told was deposited by the plaintiffs on or before June 15, 1970. This suit, which was compromised and in which the said decree was passed bore No. 141 of 1966.
(3.) The decree-holders-respondents made an application on June 5, 1970 seeking order of the Court to allow them to deposit the sum of Rs. 32,727. The amount was deposited by the decree-holders on June 9, 1970. In order to enable the decree-holders to make deposit of the said amount, Nazir of the Court drew up challan form. In that challan form instead of being given suit No. 141 of 1966, the suit number given was 114 of 1966. Apart from this mistake in giving a wrong number of the suit, the names of the parties, the name of the Court passing the decree and the date when the decree was passed were correctly mentioned. The amount given in the challan form as deposited was also correctly given and complied with the decree of the Court.;