JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel for the sole respondent.

2. By filing this application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl in Execution Case No. 40/2014 arising out of Declaratory Suit No. 23/2012 insofar as it bars the petitioner from selling or transferring the land covered by LSC No. 1180 of 1983 to any person as long as the respondent is alive. It may be noted herein that during the pendency of the instant revision petition, the original petitioner who is also the brother of the respondent expired on 28.4.2021 and he was substituted by his son Master Dennis J. Zodinmawii, represented by Smt. Lalchhanchhuahi vide order dated 3.9.2021 passed in LA(C) No. 67/2021. Although this revision petition was initially filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India but later on, section 115, CPC was added as well as permitted by this court and that is how this petition has been registered under the nomenclature civil revision petition.

3. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner is that after the expiry of his father Sh. J. Zomawia, he filed Declaratory Suit No. 23/2012 seeking declaration that he be declared as legal heir of Sh. J. Zomawia late in respect of LSC No. 1180 of 1983 located at Zemabawk, Aizawl. The suit was disposed of on contest vide judgment and order dated 28.4.2014 appointing the petitioner as the legal heir of his late father in respect of LSC No. 1180 of 1983. It was further directed that since the respondent-defendant-J. Lalhlupuii had looked after her parents in the main house (In Pui) till their death and she was living in the said main house as on date, the petitioner should not interfere with the peaceful possession of the main house by the respondent-defendant as long as she lives. Following the Judgment, the trial court passed a decree dated 6.5.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Execution Case No. 40/2014 seeking execution of the said decree. In the Execution Case, the executing court vide order dated 18.11.2015 passed an order amongst others that the decree holder J. Lalhmingliana, i.e., the petitioner should not sell or transfer the land covered by LSC No. 1180/1983 to any person as long as the judgment debtor J. Lalhlupuii, i.e., the respondent lives. The petitioner being aggrieved with this order in particular has preferred the instant revision petition.

4. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a bare perusal of the order passed by the court below in Declaratory Suit No. 23/2012, it can be seen that the trial court appointed the petitioner as the legal heir of his late father in respect of LSC No. 1180 of 1983 and as for the respondent, it was observed that since she had looked after their parents till their death, she can continue to live in the main house (In Pui) and her peaceful possession of the house should not be disturbed by the petitioner as long as she lives. However, the executing court vide the impugned order dated 18.11.2015 has ordered thatt the petitioner cannot sell or transfer the land covered by the said LSC to any person as long as the respondent is alive. He submits that the same is not the condition imposed by the trial court in the Declaratory Suit and, therefore, the executing court has clearly gone beyond the decree. Under the circumstance, the said direction should be interfered with by this court. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities:

(1) Deepa Bhargava vs. Mahesh Bhargava, (2009) 2 SCC 294

(2) Coal Linker vs. Coal India Ltd. (2009) 9 SCC 491

5. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the instant petition filed under article 227 of the Con