Judgment Mr. Ramendra Jain, (Oral):-Through this second appeal third party objector has laidchallenge to order dated 05.10.2019 of lower Appellate Court, affirming,order of Executing Court dated 30.11.2018, whereby his objections weredismissed. 2.Briefly, deceased respondent No. 1-Anand Sarup and hischildren filed a suit for partition against respondent No. 2-Smt. RattanBala, pleading that they were co-sharers to the extent of 1/2 share eachbeing joint purchasers of the suit land measuring 1 Bigha, situated atvillage Abdulahpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala. The suit was hotlycontested by respondent No. 2. Learned trial Court after holding trial,decreed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.1997(Annexure P-2), which attained finality, after dismissal of her appeal videjudgment and decree dated 28.03.2000 by the Ist Appellate Court andnon-admission of her second appeal by this Court. 3. Thereafter, decree-holder-Anand Sarup, moved anapplication for preparation and passing of final decree. During thependency respondent No. 3-Sneh Lata, wife of appellant-objector, filedthird party objections claiming herself to be a co-sharer in the suitproperty by virtue of judgment and decree dated 04.09.1986 passed inCivil Suit No. 315 dated 26.08.1996 titled as ‘Munish Kumar Vs. Rattan Bala’, whereby respondent No. 2-Rattan Bala, transferred 2 biswas ofshare to her grandson, namely; Munish Kumar S/o Sushil Kumar andSneh Lata (appellant and respondent No. 3 herein, respectively) pleadingthat her son-Munish Kumar, expired issueless on 26.05.2000. Therefore,share of Munish Kumar her son had fallen to her. Resultantly, she hadbecome co-sharer in the suit land to the extent of 2 biswas of land.Objections of respondent No. 2-Saneh Lata were allowed by the trialCourt vide order dated 04.01.2013 (Annexure P-3). Consequently, freshpreliminary decree after impleading respondent No. 3 (wife of appellantobjector) was passed vide order Annexure P-3. 4. During the pendency of application for passing of finaldecree, Anand Sarup, expired and his legal heirs were brought on recordon 26.10.2012 by the trial Court. A local commissioner was appointed tovisit the spot and suggest mode of partition, who submitted his reportdated 08.02.2013 (Annexure P-5), pointing out that out of total suit landmeasuring 1 bigha i.e. 20 biswas, 4 biswas had already been acquired bythe State Government, therefore, 16 biswas of land was in existence at thespot. 5. Respondent No. 3-Saneh Lata (wife of appellant-objector)and he himself both filed objections to the local commissioner’s reportAnnexure P-5. Simultaneously, respondent No. 3 and appellant-objectorfiled separate suits to challenge judgment and decree Annexure P-2, butremained unsuccessful up to this Court in Civil Revision No. 7202 of2009. 5. Respondent No. 3-Saneh Lata (wife of appellant-objector)and he himself both filed objections to the local commissioner’s reportAnnexure P-5. Simultaneously, respondent No. 3 and appellant-objectorfiled separate suits to challenge judgment and decree Annexure P-2, butremained unsuccessful up to this Court in Civil Revision No. 7202 of2009. A categorical observation was made by this Court in order dated01.07.2010, that second civil suit filed by respondent No. 3 was nothingbut, only an abuse of process of law. 6. Since, the decree-holders could not succeed in obtainingfinal decree, despite litigating for about 20 years, therefore, they filedCR-5816-2012, wherein vide order dated 01.10.2012, trial Court wasdirected to pass final decree within 4 months from the date of receipt ofcertified copy of that order. 7. Thereafter, the trial Court after hearing all the affectedparties and dealing with their objections passed final decree dated08.05.2013 (Annexure P-7), relying upon the report of localcommissioner Annexure P-5. After dismissal of appeal against the orderAnnexure P-5, vide judgment and decree dated 18.03.2016 (Annexure P-8), the same attained finality. Thereafter, decree-holders being legal heirsof respondent No. 1-Anand Sarup, filed execution, wherein now,appellant-objector took the front and filed objections in place of his wifeSaneh Lata-respondent No. 3. The Executing Court, after hearing boththe sides dismissed his objections vide order dated 30.11.2018. 8. Being, dis-satisfied, he approached lower Appellant Court,but remained un-successful as his appeal too was dismissed videimpugned order dated 05.10.2019. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends thatboth the Courts below have failed to appreciate that as per revenue recordappellant-objector was in possession as “Gair Marusi” tenant over someportion of the suit land and, thus, warrants of possession could not havebeen executed against him, without permitting him to prove his case byholding trial. 10. Having given thoughtful consideration to submissions oflearned counsel for the appellant-objector, this Court finds the instantsecond appeal merits dismissal for the reasons to follow: 11. Admittedly, in the revenue records, suit property wasrecorded as “gair mumkin”, which means un-cultivable. It is needless tomention here that on an un-cultivable land there cannot be any “gairmarusi” tenant. Therefore, any revenue entry in favour of appellantobjector showing him as “gair marusi” tenant has to be considered asstray entry, more particularly, when appellant-objector is not having anyrent receipt or rent agreement in his favour. Consequently, on the basisof illegal entries, he was not entitled to claim himself in possession of thesuit land as “gair marusi” tenant. 12. Therefore, any revenue entry in favour of appellantobjector showing him as “gair marusi” tenant has to be considered asstray entry, more particularly, when appellant-objector is not having anyrent receipt or rent agreement in his favour. Consequently, on the basisof illegal entries, he was not entitled to claim himself in possession of thesuit land as “gair marusi” tenant. 12. As per own pleadings of the appellant-objector, localcommissioner had visited the spot on the direction of trial Court tosuggest mode of final partition. In case, appellant-objector would havebeen in possession of the suit property, he must have come to know aboutthe pending litigation in question and the visit of local commissioner, butappellant-objector did not ever choose to become a party in the suit bymoving any application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Silence ofappellant-objector throughout for around more than 20 years in itselfspeaks volumes about his conduct that initially, he, through his wife andnow in his individual capacity is out and out to usurp the suit land,inasmuch as, initially, wife of appellant-objector continuously hold thefront and kept on litigating with the decree-holders. Now, the appellantobjector taking baton from his wife on false plea of his possession as”gair marusi” tenant over the same has come in front. It is un-explainedon the file that what prevented the appellant to join proceedings at thatstage, when his wife had filed objections. He, thus now, cannot bepermitted to stall the execution of final decree. 13. I have gone through the orders of both the Courts below andfind no illegality or perversity in the same.Dismissed. 14. Executing Court is directed to satisfy the execution withintwo months positively from the date of receipt of certified copy of thisorder. 15. It is, however, made clear that there is no necessity for theexecuting Court for framing the issues.