A second execution application is impermissible when the decree has been fully satisfied in a prior execution.

JUDGMENT :

1.This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the learned District Judge-3, South-Goa at Margao passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.99 of 2016, which dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. The impugned Judgment upholds Order dated 17.09.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao in Portuguese Civil Misc. Application No.62/2016/I filed in Portuguese Civil Misc. Application No.80 of 2012 which dismissed the petitioners' application for seeking eviction of the respondents from the residential house and property. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the District Court, and Order dated 17.09.2016 passed by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao, it has been held that the petitioners' second execution application to recover possession of the property in question was not maintainable, in the facts of the case.

2.In reply to the petition, the respondents filed an affidavit dated03.02.2022 opposing the admission of the petition. Since the question that arises for my determination is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, a second Execution Application was maintainable at law.

3.Rule. With the consent of the parties rule made returnable forthwith.

The petition is disposed of finally with the consent of the parties.

4.On the basis of the pleadings in the petition and record annexed to the affidavit in reply, the following facts are relevant for consideration in deciding this matter:-

(a) In an Inventory Proceeding No.87/2003/I(O)/Inventory Proceeding No.111/2003/I(N) (hereinafter referred to as “Inventory Proceeding”) of the late parents of the petitioners and respondents, one of the properties in their estate, known as “Temporalem Moina”, admeasuring 1125 square metres in survey No.7/5 of village Carmona, Salcete, Goa (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”) on which there stands a residential house admeasuring 175 square metres, came to be allotted to the petitioners, pursuant to an auction held in the Inventory Proceeding. The suit property which included the house was allotted in favour of the petitioners by a Final Chart of Partition of the estate dated 28.03.2012 passed in the Inventory Proceeding.

(b) The petitioners thereafter filed an execution proceeding in the Inventory Court seeking enforcement of the final chart of allotment/partition and requested the Inventory Court to execute its allotment dated 28.03.2012 by evicting the respondents and placing the petitioners in possession of the suit property; a Warrant of Possession dated 04.05.2015 issued by the Inventory Court came to be executed by the bailiff of the Inventory Court on 04.05.2015 itself, were on a compliance report was recorded by the bailiff of the Inventory Court setting out that he had used labourers to remove all the material existing in the suit house, without obstruction from the Judgment debtors/respondents and had fully executed the Warrant of Possession, by putting the suit property in possession of the petitioners, who then placed new locks on the door of the suit house. As a token of having received possession of the suit house on execution of the warrant, the petitioners signed on the compliance report, thus acknowledging that they had taken possession of the suit property. This possession is not disputed by the petitioners and has been clearly pleaded by the petitioners at paragraph nos. 2(i) to 2(l) of the present petition.

(c) The petitioners further claim that after taking possession of the suit property in