L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE first defendant in O. S. No. 32 of 1998 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal is the petitioner in this revision.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS filed the suit against the petitioner and four others, for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and consequential injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, which is a small extent of 38 sq. yards, situate in Survey no. 923/1 of leeja village and mandal. After contest by the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit through its Judgment dated 28-04-2004. The respondents filed E. P. No. 91 of 2004 for delivery of possession. Through order dated 30-06-2004, the executing Court issued warrant for delivery of possession of the EP Schedule property.

( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that the decree in O. S. No. 32 of 1998 does not contain any direction as to the delivery of possession and in that view of the matter, it was not competent for the executing Court to issue warrant for the same.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the executing Court cannot go beyond the terms of a decree and as long as there is no direction in the decree as to the delivery of possession, it was not competent for the executing Court to issue the warrant for delivery of possession. He submits that even if the omission to specify the relief as to delivery of possession in the decree is accidental, till the necessary steps are taken, the executing Court could not have enforced such a relief.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the trial court specifically answered all the issues in the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and failure to mention the relief to delivery of possession in the decree was accidental. He submits that once it emerges that the trial court decreed the suit in respect of delivery of possession also, no exception can be taken to the order under revision.

( 6 ) AS observed earlier, the suit was filed for the reliefs of (a) declaration of title; (b) recovery of possession; and (c) consequential injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial Court framed independent issues on each of these aspects being Issue Nos. 1 to 3. They read as under: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession as prayed for from defendants 1 and 2? (3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? it has undertaken discussion on each and every issue with reference to the voluminous evidence that was placed before it, in the form of deposition of P. Ws. 1 to 4, D. W. 1; exs. A-1 to A-19 and Exs. B-1 to B-5. All the issues were answered in favour of the plaintiffs. However, while summing up the result of the discussion and findings on issues, in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment, the trial Court omitted to refer to the relief of delivery of possession. The paragraph reads as under:"in the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs by declaring the plaintiffs right and title over the suit schedule A and B properties and the defendants 1 to 6 are restrained by way of perpetual injunction not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule a and b properties". The decree was drawn on the basis of the above said paragraph and naturally the relief in relation to the delivery of possession did not find a place in it. The relevant paragraph in the decree is as under: that the suit of the plaintiffs be and the same is decreed with costs, by declaring the plaintiffs right and title over the suit schedule a and b properties and the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are restrained by way of perpetual injunction not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule a and b properties. " from the above, it is clear that the decree, as it stands now, does not contain any relief as regards delivery of possession.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document