IMPORTANT POINT
Court executing decree shall determine all questions arising between parties to suit or their representatives in relation to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of decree and such questions may not be adjudicated in a separate suit.

JUDGMENT :

Dipankar Datta, J.

Leave granted.

2. More than a century and a half back, the Privy Council (speaking through the Right Hon. Sir James Colville) in The General Manager of The Raj Durbhunga, Under the Court of Wards v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh, (1871-72) 14 Moo IA 605 lamented that the difficulties of litigants in India indeed begin when they have obtained a decree. A reference to the above observation is also found in the decision of the Oudh Judicial Commissioner's Court in Kuer Jang Bahadur v. Bank of Upper India Ltd. Lucknow, AIR 1925 Oudh 448. It was ruled there that the Courts had to be careful to ensure that the process of the Court and the laws of procedure were not abused by judgment-debtors in such a way as to make the courts of law instrumental in defrauding creditors, who had obtained decrees in accordance with their rights.

3. Notwithstanding the enormous lapse of time, we are left awestruck at the observation of the Privy Council which seems to have proved prophetic. The observation still holds true in present times and this case is no different from cases of decree-holders’ woes commencing while they are in pursuit of enforcing valid and binding decrees passed by civil courts of competent jurisdiction. The situation is indeed disquieting, viewed from the perspective of the decree-holders, but the law, as it stands, has to be given effect whether the court likes the result or not. In Martin Burn Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1966 SC 529, this Court held that a court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.

4. The challenge in these civil appeals by the Appellants herein, daughter and son of Mrs. Tara Cherian (“Mrs. Cherian”, hereafter), is to the common interim order of the Principal Sub-Judge, Kottayam, (“the Executing Court”, hereafter) dated 29th June, 2018. The Executing Court was seized of an execution application under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”, hereafter) filed by the Appellants, seeking enforcement of the decree dated 21st October, 2000 (“Decree”, hereafter) and removal of resistance put forth by the contesting respondents herein (“Respondents”, hereafter). By the impugned order, the Executing Court held several objections filed by the Respondents to be maintainable and deemed it necessary to adjudicate the same on their own merits, after due recording of evidence.

5. Having regard to the nature and extent of controversy raised, a decision on these appeals should not have necessitated noting the facts triggering the appeals and the rival contentions advanced across the bar in any great depth; however, since the parties have addressed us at length, we propose to briefly narrate the essential facts and refer to the rival claims as advanced by learned senior counsel for the parties before recording our conclusions on such claims.

6. The basic facts arising from the two sets of proceedings, which we would presently advert to, are intertwined; hence, it is considered appropriate to dissect the same for facility of appreciation.

7. The first part of the factual matrix is that:

a. Mrs. Cherian, as the original plaintiff, instituted OS No. 28/1987 (“the Suit”, hereafter) inter alia against Mr. V.T. Mathew [defendant no.1], his sons [defendant no. 2, Mr. Thomas Mathew (“Mr. Thomas”, hereafter) and defendant no. 3, Mr. Abraham Mathew (“Mr. Abraham”, hereafter), and Mr. Mathew’s assistant defendant no. 4, Mr. K.T. Joseph (“the Defendants”, wherever referred to collectively, hereafter) for declaration of title of Mrs. Cherian in respect of land measuring in excess of 2.81 acres in Village Nattakom, Kottayam, Taluk, Kottayam District, Kerala (“Suit Property”, hereafter), and recovery of possession with mesne profits from the Defendants.

b. Mrs. Cherian contended that Mr. Mathew, the caretaker of the Suit Property, had intended to purchase the same from her deceased husband, that the s