The executing court must adhere strictly to the decree's mandates and cannot alter prior court judgments.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. These proceedings emanate from judgment dated 18th February 2019, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA 641/2018, (Sajan Sethi v. Rajan Sethi) in which the present respondent was the appellant and the present appellant was the respondent.

2. Under challenge, in the aforesaid RFA 641/2018, was the judgment and decree dated 20th April 2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in CS 11193/2016 (Rajan Sethi v. Sajan Sethi).

3. Inasmuch as the relevant facts, pertaining to the present dispute, stand crisply elucidated in the order dated 18th February 2019 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, one may distil the facts from the said order.

4. The learned ADJ, vide her judgment and decree dated 20th April 2018, directed partition of the property situated at D-1090, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065 ("the suit property")

5. The parties are brothers. They are the sons of Mr. S.L. Sethi. According to the recital of facts, which find place in the judgment dated 18th February 2019, the suit property, consequent to Will executed by S. L. Sethi, devolved upon Krishna Sethi, the mother of the petitioner and the respondent. Krishna Sethi expired on 4th July 2005, leaving behind a Will dated 27th January 2005.

6. CS 11193/2016, instituted by the petitioner, sought partition of the suit property in terms of the said Will dated 27th January 2005.

7. It is not in dispute that, as per the aforesaid Will dated 27th January 2005, the ground floor of the suit fell to the share of the petitioner, and the first floor fell to the share of the respondent. We are not particularly concerned, in this writ petition, either with the ground floor or the first floor. The dispute pertains exclusively to the second floor of the suit property.

8. The Will dated 27th January 2005 of Krishna Sethi required the second floor of the suit property to be divided equally between the parties, with the front portion of the property falling to the share of the respondent and the rear portion falling to the share of the petitioner.

9. RFA 641/2018, as already noted, impugned the judgment dated 20th April 2018, of the learned ADJ, which directed partition of the suit property. A considerable portion of the judgment dated 18th February 2019 relates to the ground floor and the first floor of the suit property and the area appurtenant thereto, which is not of particular relevance to the present dispute.

10. Insofar as the second floor of the suit property, to which the present dispute relates, is concerned, this Court has, in para 4(iii) of the judgment dated 18th February 2019, noted thus:

"4(iii). It is argued on behalf of the appellant/defendant that though the ground-floor vests in the respondent/plaintiff in terms of the Will of the mother, yet the appellant/defendant has a right to use the driveway on the ground-floor and the back courtyard and these should be held as common areas even though the Will does not designate such areas as commonly owned areas. There is also a related issue to be resolved and that is with respect to allowing of another/additional entrance door by making an entrance door in the second-floor landing of the staircase, so that the respondent/plaintiff will have direct access/entrance to the back portion of the second-floor which falls to the share of the respondent/plaintiff."

(Emphasis supplied)

11. It is clear, from a plain reading of para 4(iii) of the judgment dated 18th Februa