Decree enforcement is limited to the property mentioned in the decree, and the executing court cannot go beyond the specified boundaries.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners who are the decree holders in E.P. No. 41/2003 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala, have filed this writ petition challenging the order dtd. 16/6/2015 by which the Executing Court partly allowed the application filed by them under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure and rejected the request of the decree holders to execute the decree as per the sketches at Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7.

2. The suit in O.S. No. 323/1999 was filed for recovery of possession of plaint 'A' schedule property. The said suit was decreed and the defendant was directed to deliver possession of A schedule property which is described below:

Immovable property situate at Kanthawara village, Karkala taluk.

3. An appeal was filed in R.A. No. 101/2006 before the first appellate Court by the defendant which was dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff against the findings recorded on issue Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 were modified and were answered in favour of the plaintiff. It is stated, that R.S.A. No. 1244/2022 is pending consideration before this Court.

4. In the meanwhile, decree holder sought execution of the decree in E.P. No. 41/2003. In the said execution petition an application was filed by the decree holder to appoint a survey commissioner to measure and identify plaint A schedule property with reference to Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7 and to assist the Court to deliver plaint A schedule property. The executing Court, in terms of the order impugned herein, allowed the application in part and directed the Tahasildar to depute a competent surveyor to assist the Bailiff in executing the decree to deliver possession of plaint A schedule property. However, it rejected the request of the decree holder to hand over possession of the property as per the sketch at Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7. Being aggrieved by such rejection, the present petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Ex.C.6 was a sketch that was summoned from the concerned authority which evidenced the grant of the suit property to the plaintiff while Ex.C.7 was a sketch of the property that was granted to the defendant, which was thereafter set aside. Learned counsel submitted that the grant in favour of the defendant was subsequent to the grant made in the favour of the plaintiff and therefore there was a clear overlap. In order to identify this, it was incumbent upon the executing Court to instruct the surveyor to deliver possession of the property as per the sketch at Ex.C.6 and Ex.C.7.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the judgment debtor submitted that the decree holder himself was not sure about the boundaries of the property. He submitted that additional issue framed by the trial Court regarding the boundaries of the suit property were held against the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek for execution of the decree in respect of any property other than the plaint A schedule property.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is now well settled that a decree can be enforced only in respect of a property mentioned in the decree and nothing else. It is not the case of the decree holder that the property mentioned in plaint A schedule differs from the property mentioned in Ex.C.6. If that be so, the executing Court can only execute the decree in respect of the property mentioned therein and cannot travel beyond or behind the decree. The judgment in R.A. No. 101/2006 discloses that a similar request was made in the appeal, which was rejected. It was held:

"71. However it is worthy to mention here itself that in view of encroachm