Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Smt. Gauri Bai through Legal representatives – Appellant
Versus
Kheman Singh S/o Shishupal Singh – Respondent
WP227 No. 704 of 2018
Decided on : 08-04-2024
Article 227 - Civil Suit - Code of Civil Procedure - 151, 227 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the execution of a decree, the scope of the executing court's powers, and the limitations on the executing court's authority. The court emphasized that the executing court cannot go beyond the terms of the decree and must interpret the decree in a manner that gives true effect to it. The judgment also highlighted the importance of not drawing a new decree and the need for the executing court to strike a balance while giving effect to the decree.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title, possession, and loss of consortium regarding a disputed property. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, declaring her as the owner of the land. The defendants appealed against the decision, but the appellate court affirmed the judgment. Subsequent appeals to higher courts were also dismissed. The plaintiff then initiated execution proceedings to obtain possession of the land as per the decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to the land as per the terms of the decree, which specified the area of the land. The executing court's order to hand over the possession of excess land beyond the decree's terms was held to be beyond its authority.
Issues: The main issue was whether the executing court's order to hand over possession of excess land beyond the terms of the decree was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The executing court cannot go beyond the terms of the decree and must interpret the decree in a manner that gives true effect to it. It cannot draw a new decree and must strike a balance while giving effect to the decree.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the executing court's order was in conformity with its powers and the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The interim order was vacated, and pending interlocutory applications were closed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner/plaintiff-decree holder has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 21-08-2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class II Bemetara in Special Case No. 182-A/79 by which the learned Executing Court has rejected the application filed by the decree holder under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has directed the Tahsildar, Kamharia to handover the possession of land excess to 2.5 acres of land of Khasra No (old) 13/1 and 13/2 which are now re-numbered as Khasra No. 43 and 45 to Bharat. The petitioner has also filed writ petition assailing the order dated 29.09.2015 Annexure P/1-A by which the learned Executing Court has allowed the objection of the judgment-debtor and directed for demarcation of the suit property through competent revenue officer.
2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge, Class II, Bemetara which was registered as Civil Suit No. 182-A/79 for declaration of title, possession and loss of consortium mainly contending that one Sishupal Singh has sold the property to Girdhar bearing Khasra No. 13/1 and 13/2 area 2.7 acres as per sale deed (Ex.P/1), later on this land was sold to Gowri Bai, thereafter the deed of transfer was recorded between Keshav and Narsinghlal vide Annexure P/3. It has also been contended that the defendants No. 1 to 4 are sons of Shishupal Singh and defendants No. 5 to 8 are sons of Brijlal who are grandson of Shishupal. The partition took place between them during life time of Shishupal Singh. Accordingly, Khasra No 13/2 area 2.5 acres was received in the share of Shishupal Singh and on 11-6-1963 Shishupal Singh sold the property to defendant No.1 but inadvertently it has been mentioned Khasra No. 13/1, which falls within the share of Baran Singh who is brother of Shishupal Singh. After death of Baran Singh the property was handed over to Lakhan Singh and he was in possession of the property. Thereafter, in the year 1963, he sold the property to Narsingh Seth and in the year 1968 Narsingh had also transferred the property in the name of plaintiff and since then plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. On 10-2-1968, when the plaintiff moved an application for attestation of the property submitted sale deed, then the attesting officer has passed the order of attestation but the record was never rectified. As per the amendment No. 217/2018 order of correction was passed on 11-9-1977.
3. It has been contended in the plaint that during life time of Shishupal Singh there was no dispute about the property and due to non-correction in the revenue record the standing crop of the plaintiff has been forcefully taken in the year 1977 by the defendants and deprived the plaintiff to seek profits from the suit property. As such she is entitled to get the loss of standing crop which was sown in the field. In the year 1977 the plaintiff has again sown flaxseed which have been forcefully withdrawn by the defendants and dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit property, therefore, the suit was filed for declaration, possession and loss of mesne profit.
4. The defendants filed their written statement and the learned trial court has framed issues. The relevant issue for deciding the controversy is issue No.1 which is extracted below:-
^^¼1½ D;k okfn;k xzke rksju dh Hkwfe [k-ua- 13@2 jdck 2-50 ,dM+ dh ,d ek= ekfyd o Hkwfe Lokeh gS\**
5. The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial court while deciding the issue No.1 has recorded its finding that the plaintiff is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 13/2 and thereafter has passed the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial court has recorded its finding that the plaintiff is entitled to get land bearing Khasra No 13/2 and the defendant
The executing court cannot go beyond the terms of the decree and must interpret the decree in a manner that gives true effect to it. It cannot draw a new decree and must strike a balance while giving....
The executing court is bound to execute the decree as per its terms and cannot entertain frivolous objections that delay justice.
The executing court must determine questions arising between parties to the decree without modifying it, and procedural irregularities should not defeat substantive rights.
The Executing Court must execute decrees as per their terms without questioning merits or introducing new factual disputes.
The executing court has jurisdiction to enforce decrees, including injunctions, and can act against violations by judgment debtors.
Executing Court has authority to adjudicate all questions pertaining to right, title or interest in property arising between parties including claim of a stranger who apprehends dispossession from im....
A consent judgment is binding, preventing parties from challenging execution orders if they previously agreed to the terms, even if property boundaries are unclear.
Point of Law- Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and the order is one without jurisdiction and is thereby a void order. It is true that High Court normally exercises its revisional jurisdiction unde....
The executing court cannot go beyond the terms of the decree and must give effect to the decree as passed, and a decree, even if erroneous, is binding between the parties until set aside by an approp....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
