Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioners are husband and wife and the respondents are their sons. They have come up in this writ petition against the order of the executing court dated 26.5.2012 by which their application 31Ga2 in Execution Case No.61 of 2008 has been rejected.
One of the sons of the petitioners Anil Kumar Singh instituted a suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioners and his other brothers. The aforesaid suit No.136 of 2000 (Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Shobha Singh and others) was decreed in terms of the compromise dated 11.8.2003. According to the said decree the house was divided into three portions and each son was given a separate portion exclusively with a condition that whenever the petitioners would visit they would be allowed suitable accommodation in any of the three portions and would be taken good care of by the sons.
According to the aforesaid decree which is not disputed, three sons of the petitioners who are respondents, became exclusive owners of each of the portion of the said house allotted to them. They are living in their respective portions.
The petitioners filed application 31Ga2 dated 6.8.2010 complaining that the respondents have materially altered part of the portions in their share and that they have illegally opened certain doors either by removing the walls in between and by raising some new wall. Therefore, the position of the house as originally existed be restored and in case the respondents interfere in such restoration police help be provided for the purpose.
The aforesaid application has been rejected by the impugned order holding that as per the compromise decree the house was divided into three portions and all the three sons are occupying their respective portions. They are exclusive owner of the portions in their possession and as such, they have unfettered right to use their portion in the manner they like. The petitioners cannot make any grievance if any changes therein have been made and to pray to restore it to its original position.
The reasoning adopted by the executing court in rejecting the application is perfectly just and do not suffer from any error of law.
The writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.9.2012 brizesh