Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 209 of 1959‑60, decided on 9th February 1961, District Jhelum.

‑Transfer of accupancy rights in favour of one of many landlords‑Revenue Court passing decree for possession in favour of landlords against vendee‑Application for execution by one landlord alone‑44 out of 122 landlords opposing execution of decree‑Execution application cannot proceed.

Nasiruddin v. Dost Muhammad 139 I C 151 ref.

Muhammad Shafi for Petitioner.

Ataullah for Respondent.

The facts of the case briefly are that under section 60 of the Punjab Tenancy Act a transfer of rights of occupancy made by Mst. Ghulabo in favour of Painda Khan one of the landlords was declared void by the Revenue Courts and a decree for recovery of possession was passed in favour of the landlords and against the vendee. The vendee Painda Khan, however, continued in possession and built a house on the land in question. The original plaintiff has died and his son Muhammad Bashir the present petitioner took out execution proceedings to recover possession from the vendee. The Collector declined to execute the decree on the ground that all the landlords must join in the application for execution and the learned Additional Commis sioner has upheld the order of the Collector. Muhammad Bashir has come up in revision.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the provisions of Order XXI, rule 15, C. P. C. which gives discretion to the executing Court to allow execution of a decree on the application of any one or more of the decree‑holders of a joint decree for the benefit of all unless the decree imposes a condition to the contrary. The learned Additional Commissioner, however, held that in this particular case forty‑four of the landlords who are 122 in number have opposed the execution of the decree and the exercise of discretion by the Collector against execution of the decree was justified. He has distinguished the ruling in Nasiruddin v. Dost Muhammad (139 I C 151) relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, as in that case the objection to execution was taken by the judgment‑debtor and not by any of the decree‑holders.

In the present case as already observed a large number of decree‑holders object the execution of the decree and in these circumstances I am of the view that the Collector and learned Commissioner were justified in refusing to grant the application. I would accordingly reject this revision petition.

K. M. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.