Surjit Kaur vs Gurdev Singh and Another

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.02.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sirsa and the order dated 1.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court, Sirsa vide which the objections filed by the petitioner-objector have been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner is a co-sharer in the land in question, as such the petitioner has raised the objection that the warrant of possession for specific khasra number cannot be issued in pursuance to the decree of specific performance. The learned counsel further contends that the decree dated 2.3.2005 is only to the extent of 1/4th share of total land measuring 64 kanals and 6 marlas and numbers have been fully described in decree-sheet dated 2.3.2005 (Annexure P-1). It is the categoric stand of the petitioner that he is a co-sharer and possession of specific khasra number cannot be delivered. The warrant of possession issued by the Executing Court should have been in respect of share, instead of specific khasra. The learned counsel further relies upon 2001 VII AD 513 (SC) Shankar Popat Gaidhani Vs. Hiraman Umaji More (Dead) by Lrs. and Others, and Brahmdeo Chaudhary, Adv. Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another, to contend that even if there is a decree for specific khasra number of the land, then the same is deemed to be decree from the share and the only remedy before the parties will be to seek partition as per the provisions of law.

None has put in appearance of behalf of the respondents.

I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Admittedly, the decree is with regard to the extent of 1/4th share out of total land and in such circumstances, the delivery of possession of specific khasra number cannot be ordered. The question of issuing warrant of possession for specific khasra number does not arise. At the most, warrant of possession can be issued with respect to the only share of the property and the possession delivered will be in the nature of symbolic possession.

In view of above, the impugned orders dated 23.02.2008 and 1.5.2008 are set aside. The warrant of possession shall be treated as a warrant of share instead of specific khasra number and the possession shall be delivered as symbolic possession. In the aforementioned terms, the instant revision is disposed of.