- (1.) Bhagat Ram, decree-holder sought execution of a decree dated 15.2.1984, passed in the following terms :- "It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is decreed against the defendant for the issuance of mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to vacate the space at point 'DX', shown in the site plan Exhibit LC/1, in order to open and clear the drain and to close the ventilators, doors and windows, towards plaintiff's house, as undertaken by the defendant in his statement on 27.5.1982, to close those on the suit being decreed against him." The judgment-debtor objected the execution of the decree inter alia on the grounds that the drain and the street in which the door, ventilators and the windows open, is a public street and its ownership vests in the Gram Panchayat and cosequently, the matter was within the jurisdiction of the District Development and Panchayat Officer, (D.D.P.O.) under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass the decree sought to be executed. The executing Court found that the land vests in the Gram Panchayat it being a public street and the drain being also a public place, it is only the D.D.P.O. who had village under the aforesaid Act, hence the decree passed by the civil Court is a void decree and the same cannot be executed in these proceedings.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the reasons given by the trial Court cannot be sustained inasmuch as there is no dispute between the parties with respect to the title of the land under the drain nor there is any claim that ventilators, doors and windows of the defendant are owned by the Gram Panchayat. The dispute was between the two private parties and the trial Court, after taking into consideration the pleas raised, and the evidence recorded in the suit passed the decree. The judgment-debtor cannot be permitted to go behind the decree, the decree is not void on the face of it. Even otherwise also the decree is not void. It is contended that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and in order to support this contention reliance is placed on Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and others, 1970 AIR(SC) 1475.
(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent controverts the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contends that the decree is based on some earlier compromise entered into between the parties in 1967, consequently a subsequent decree is bad.;