Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
On the Death of Bangshi Dhar Lahkar His Legal Heir Smt. Snigdha Baruah – Appellant
Versus
Gobin Haloi S/o Late Probin Haloi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding land identity and decree. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court analysis of boundaries and execution. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. principle on curing defects in decrees. (Para 12) |
| 5. final order for restoring execution proceedings. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. D.C.C. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This civil revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.03.2015 passed by the Court of learned Munsiff No.1, Jorhat in Title Execution Case No. 8/14, whereby the application made under Section 152 read with section 153(A) by the Decree holder for correction of boundaries was rejected.
3. The fact of the case is that, the Petitioner/Plaintiff filed a title suit against the Respondent/Defendant being Title Suit No.30/2011 for recovery of khass possession by evicting the defendant from the suit land measuring 1 (One) Katha specifically described in the schedule of the plaint, giving the boundaries as per registered Sale Deed dated 15-02-1975. The plaintiff's suit was decreed
Decrees regarding immovable property must be upheld despite minor identification errors, allowing for amendments under CPC to ensure proper execution.
The Executing Court has jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Code to address ambiguities in land boundaries to facilitate proper execution of decrees.
Point of Law : A person, including a stranger, could maintain a petition under Rule 97 of Order XXI and object and get adjudication when he sought to be dispossessed by the decree holder. The express....
The court affirmed that prohibitory injunctions can be enforced despite ongoing disputes, ensuring that decree holders can secure their rights.
The executing court is bound to execute the decree as per its terms and cannot entertain frivolous objections that delay justice.
Court emphasized that amendments to execution petitions for clarity do not alter property identity and are permissible.
Rule 35 of Order 21 deals with modes of executing a decree for possession of immovable properties.
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
