An application under Order 21 Rules 98-101 of the CPC is not maintainable if the grievance regarding alleged dispossession pertains to property not covered by the decree or execution proceedings, as the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the terms of the decree.

1. The appellant /defendant/ judgment debtor has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Pendra Road, Bilaspur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 13/2015 (Komalchand Jain Vs. Madanlal Gupta) arising out of the order dated 01.10.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Pendra Road, in Execution case No.220-A/1986 (Madanlal Gupta v Komalchand Jain). For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

2. (a) The respondent/plaintiff Madan Lal Gupta instituted a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and possession pleading inter alia that the original owner of the land, namely Lal Amol Singh, had sold a part of the property to the defendant by registered sale deed dated 27.04.1974. It was further pleaded that the remaining part of the property, which is the subject matter of the present suit, was purchased by the plaintiff from the widows, sons and daughters of Amol Singh by registered sale deed dated 25.06.1975 and thereafter the plaintiff was settled in possession of the said land. It was further averred that the defendant encroached upon certain portions of the land belonging to the plaintiff and despite service of legal notice continued to raise construction over the same. It was also pleaded that another portion of the suit land was subsequently sold to the plaintiff by the legal heirs of Amol Singh by registered sale deed dated 03.04.1976. According to the plaintiff, when he started raising construction over his portion of the land, the defendant caused obstruction and interference, whereupon the plaintiff lodged a report with the police in the month of April, 1976.

(b) It was further pleaded that the defendant initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to which an ex parte order of attachment was passed on 27.05.1976 in Criminal Case No. 91/1976 by the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur, and consequently the property remained in custodia legis. It was also pleaded that by order dated 26.09.1978 the Magistrate directed the parties to approach the Civil Court and further directed that the property shall remain under attachment until an appropriate order is passed by the Civil Court. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant had made interpolation in his sale deed dated 27.04.1974, in relation to which an FIR bearing Crime No. 107/1976 under Sections 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the defendant.

(c) On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff sought the following reliefs in the plaint:

अ. It be declared that the plaintiff is the owner of 40 feet x 80 feet land in the area च, छ, म च in the plaint map and that because of the interpolation made by the defendant in his sale-deed dated 27-4-1974 with respect to the length and width of the area purchased by him, the plaintiff's right over the area अ. क. ख. ग. म. ज is not affected and in the alternative the plaintiff be delivered possession from the defendant.

आ. It be declared that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the land under attachment in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Criminal Case No.91/1976 on the area अ, ज, छ. प. ट. द. न, ख, फ.

इ. Construction raised by the defendant on the area छ. प. ट. द. न. ग. म in the plaint map be demolished and the defendant be directed to deliver possession of the said area to the plaintiff.

(d) By way of amendment in the plaint pursuant to the order dated 26.11.1999