JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---After obtaining a decree, the problem of the decree-holders is execution of the Decree. All sorts of possible objections are raised in execution by the judgment-debtors, so as to defeat the decree obtained by the decree-holders so that they are not able to reap fruits thereof. The instant case under consideration is an example of this state of affairs. A deed of partition was executed between the parties on 21-12-1989, by which the property, in question, was divided into three parts. By this deed of partition, the matter was amicably settled between the parties and the terms of settlement were recorded in Decree dated 2-1-1990 in the Inventory Proceedings No. 55/88/A. Inventory proceedings, under the Portuguese Law, are initiated to determine all rights in property and partition of the estate left by the deceased. By this Decree, the property was divided into three parts, namely (A), (B) and (C) as per plan attached thereto. In terms of the same, part (A) shall belong to the applicants and part B shall belong to the respondents and others. Some of the heirs had renounced their rights to the property and others had orally communicated their agreement to the partition deed. In part B which was allotted to the respondents and others, there is a W.C. which was in possession of the applicants. As per the said Decree, this W.C. fell in part B which was to belong to the respondents and others. The opening to this W.C. was from part A and, as such, the respondents vide application dated 27-6-95, sought closure of the door of the said W.C. Prior to this application, the applicants had filed Civil Suit No. 59/92 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Panaji seeking to restrain the present respondents from demolishing or interfering with the toilet-cum bath-room or dispossessing them from the said toilet-cum-bathroom.The stand taken by the present applicants in the said suit was that both the toilets fell in Part B which was allotted to the respondents since partition line was drawn in straight line separating Part A and Part B to divide the house equally, but it was an oral understanding between all the parties that the present applicants will continue to occupy and possess the toilet-cum-bathroom although the said bathroom falls on the border of partition of two halves. This suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge after the learned Civil Judge had come to the conclusion that there was no dispute that the present respondents are the owners of part B of the house which includes toilet and bathroom, which is in possession of the present applicants from the year 1985. The Civil Judge held that the present respondents are entitled to part B including the bathroom and the toilet and they ought to go to the Executing Court. The appeal filed by the present applicants before the District Court was dismissed and the Second Appeal filed before this Court was summarily rejected. Even inspite of clear findings of the Civil Court in the said suit, the present applicants have raised series of objections to frustrate the possession of the said bathroom which, admittedly, falls in part B, which was allotted to the respondents. The Civil Judge, vide impugned order dated 16-1-1997, overruled the objections raised by the present applicants and it was held that the respondents are entitled to close the door of the W.C. to implement the Decree dated 2-1-90 and that in case it is necessary police assistance shall be provided to them.

2.Learned Advocate Shri A.F. Diniz listed a number of objections raised by the applicants and I shall deal with them one-by-one.

3.The application, in question, was filed under section 151 C.P.C., but the same was registered as Civil Misc. Application 47/95/Portuguese. It is urged before me by the learned Advocate for the respondents that the application for execution of a Decree in an inventory proceeding is required to be filed under the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code as per the ratio laid down in (Zacar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document