ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 20-03-2025 The present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 02.07.2010 passed by learned Sub Judge-II, Patna, in Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2005 arising out of Execution Case No. 6 of 1999 and 7 of 1999 to execute the compromise decree dated 13.01.1997.

2. The petitioner, Dayanand Singh and his brother Acchay Kumar Singh had filed one Civil Suit for specific performance of contract for sale bearing Title Suit No. 178 of 1994 for execution of sale deed of four bihga 4 katha and 6 dhoor of land.

3. Subsequently, there was compromise between the plaintiffs including the petitioner and the defendants, who are O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2, Dr. Mansoor Alam Khan and Sofia Khan respectively, whereby the sale deed was to be executed by the defendants/O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 herein for specified consideration amount in favour of the plaintiffs and as per the compromise decree, 2/3 of the land was to be transferred in the name of the petitioner, Dayanand Singh or his nominee and 1/3 of the same was to be transferred in the name of Acchay Kumar Singh or his nominee.

4. After the compromise decree, Execution Case bearing no. 6 of 1999 was filed by Dayanand Singh and the Execution Case No.7 of 1999 was filed by Acchay Kumar Singh against the judgment debtors/O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 herein.

5. However, in the execution case no. 6 of 1999, the judgment debtors, took preliminary objection of non- maintainability of the execution petition, but the same was rejected by the Executing Court. Then, being aggrieved, the judgment debtors preferred civil revision petition bearing C.R. No. 1090 of 2006 which was dismissed by this Court. However, despite such dismissal of the revision, execution of the sale deed was not effected by the judgment debtors in favour of the petitioner/Dayanand Singh. Hence, this Miscellaneous case was instituted.

6. However, learned Court below by the impugned order held that the decree has been already satisfied with reference to the petitioner/Dayanand Singh.

7. As per learned counsel for the petitioner/Dayanand Singh, he has got sale deed executed in his favour only in regard to 46 katha and 4 dhoor and the judgment debtors are still required to execute the sale deed in regard to additional 10 katha and 4 dhoor of land. As per learned Court below, the sale deed in regard to 10 katha of land has been executed by the judgment debtors in the name of Mitra Mandal Sahkari Samiti, which is the nominee of Dayanand Singh and hence the decree with reference to the petitioner stands satisfied.

8. However, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of compromise whereupon the compromise decree was passed. He submits that as per para 3 ख ( ), Mitra Mandal Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti is a nominee of the co-decree holder, Acchay Kumar Singh also.

9. Hence, the transfer of land in favour of nominee Mitra Mandal Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti cannot be held that the judgment debtors have transferred this land in favour of the Samiti against the share of the petitioner.

10. At this stage, learned counsel for Acchay Kumar Singh, who is the O.P. No.3, states that as per the compromise decree, he was also entitled to get 28 katha and 2 dhoors from the judgment debtors, but till date only 25 katha land has been transferred in his favour and 3 katha and 2 dhoor land is still required to be transferred by the judgment debtors in his favour.

11. As such, it transpires that so far, the judgment debtors have transferred only 71 katha land (46 katha to Dayanand Singh and 25 katha to Acchay Singh directly in their favour) and 10 katha land in favour of their nominee, Mitra Mandal Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti. As such, total 81 katha land has been transferred by the judgment debtors in favour of the decree holders or their nominee and the judgment debtors are still required to transfer 3 katha and 6 dhoor of land in favour of the decree holders. Hence, it clearly transpires that the decree is not fully sa