1973 Supreme(Mad) 223

Madras High Court
GOKULAKRISHNAN
C.Muthuvel Pillai - Appellant
Versus
Hazarath Syed Shah Mian Sakkab Sahib Kadhiri Thaikal represented by trustee Syed Ismath Batcha Saheb - Respondent
Decided On : 04/06/1973

A decree passed by the High Court in a second appeal is executable and the executing court cannot go beyond the decree. The court has jurisdiction to fix the value of the superstructure as a consequential remedy to the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. A decree passed on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding does not require registration under the Indian Registration Act. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXX of 1963 do not apply to a case where the plaintiff is the owner of the vacant site and not the owner of both the building and the site.

Headnote:

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL - POSSESSION OF SUIT PROPERTY - DECREE FOR PURCHASE OF SUPERSTRUCTURE - EXECUTION OF DECREE - JURISDICTION OF COURT - REGISTRATION OF DECREE - TAMIL NADU MINOR INAMS (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT XXX OF 1963 - SECTION 13.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit land from defendants 1 and 2 after removing the superstructure put up thereon by them. The parties entered into a compromise, and a decree was passed directing the plaintiff to purchase the suit building and deposit the sale consideration into court. The plaintiff deposited the amount and applied for delivery of possession. The first defendant filed a civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the executability of the decree.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the decree passed by the High Court in the second appeal was executable and that the executing court could not go beyond the decree. The court also held that the fixing of the value of the superstructure was only a consequential remedy to the relief prayed for by the plaintiff and that the court had jurisdiction to do the same. The court further held that the decree did not require registration under the Indian Registration Act and that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXX of 1963 did not apply to the case.

Issues: 1. Whether the decree passed by the High Court in the second appeal was executable? 2. Whether the executing court could go beyond the decree? 3. Whether the court had jurisdiction to fix the value of the superstructure? 4. Whether the decree required registration under the Indian Registration Act? 5. Whether the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXX of 1963 applied to the case?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The decree passed by the High Court in the second appeal was executable as it was a final decree and there was neither a review petition nor any appeal to the Supreme Court against the same. 2. The executing court could not go beyond the decree as it was bound by the terms of the decree. 3. The court had jurisdiction to fix the value of the superstructure as it was only a consequential remedy to the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. 4. The decree did not require registration under the Indian Registration Act as it was a decree passed on a compromise and comprised immovable property other than that which was the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding. 5. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXX of 1963 did not apply to the case as the plaintiff was the owner of the vacant site and not the owner of both the building and the site.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the civil miscellaneous second appeal and held that the decree was executable.