The Executing Court has jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Code to address ambiguities in land boundaries to facilitate proper execution of decrees.

JUDGMENT :

(DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.)

Heard Mr. BK Bhagawati, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. M Hoque, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked challenging the order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) No.1, Darrang at Mangaldai (hereinafter to be referred to as the learned Executing Court), whereby the Title Execution Case No.1/2021 was dismissed on the ground that the decree dated 10.09.2018 is an unexecutable decree. The legality and validity of the said order dated 12.01.2024 has been challenged on the ground that the learned Executing Court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law inasmuch as, the learned Executing Court who has the jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) is empowered to decide all questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Taking into account the said submission so made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings.

3. It is seen that the petitioner herein through the predecessor-in-interest had filed a suit before the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1, Mangaldai, which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.29/2008 against the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents. The said suit was filed seeking declaration of the plaintiff’s right, title and interest over the Schedule-I land as well as for ejectment of the defendants from the Schedule-2 land. It is relevant to take note of that during the pendency of the suit, both the original plaintiff and the original defendant expired.

4. It was the specific case of the plaintiff in the said suit that the plaintiff was the pattadar and possessor of the Schedule-I land. On 01.05.2005 the original defendant, approached the plaintiff to let out his plot of land which was specifically described in Schedule 2 to the plaint ad measuring 35” x 12” situated at the Northwest corner of the Schedule-I land to the defendant on rent. The plaintiff rented out the Schedule-2 land to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- w.e.f. 08.05.2005, under an agreement dated 08.05.2005. On 08.05.2008, the plaintiff requested the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the Schedule-2 land, however, the defendant did not handover and it is under such circumstances, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of the plaintiff’s right title and interest over the Schedule-I land, which includes the Schedule-2 land as well as for recovery of vacant possession of the Schedule-2 land within one week, from the decree.

5. It is seen that the Schedule-I and the Schedule-2 lands have been described in the plaint. It is apposite therein to mention that it is the categorical case of the plaintiff that the Schedule-2 land is a part of the Schedule-I land. The original defendant filed his written statement. In the said written statement, apart from taking various preliminary objections, it was categorically stated that the defendant has been in possession of the Schedule-2 land since 1997 by executing one after another lease agreement and paid the rent regularly to the plaintiff for the disputed land and no areas of rent have been left out.

6. It is further relevant to take note of that during the pendency of the suit,