Jini Dhanrajgir & Anr.   [Appellants]  Vs.  Shibu Mathew & Anr. Etc. [Respondents]

(CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3758 – 3796 /2023)

(2JB, A.S. BOPANNA and DIPANKAR DATTA JJ., delivered by DIPANKAR DATTA J.)

Facts: 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.

Issue: Whether interference with the common order under appeal is called for or not?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellants:

The pleadings in S.L.P. (C) No. 24344/2014, filed by Mr. Thomas and Mr. Abraham, made no disclosure of anyone else being in possession of the decretal property. Further, the conduct of the Respondents was in wilful disobedience of the Decree passed by the trial court and its affirmation up to and by this Court. The Respondents had no rights in the decretal property and hence no locus standi in the matter to resist the Decree which was made two decades back.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:

Mr. Mathew was a tenant of the entire decretal property and on a part thereof he along with Mr. Thomas and Mr. Abraham Mathew had constructed buildings. In S.M. No. 107/1992 before the Land Tribunal, Mrs. Cherian was a party, yet, she did not challenge the Purchase Certificate after it was issued in favour of Mr. Mathew. Further, two other Purchase Certificates had been issued by the Land Tribunal to certain Respondents in the proceedings being SM Nos. 55 and 56/1989.

Held: The court dismissed the present appeal and held that, “Section 47 of the CPC, being one of the most important provisions relating to execution of decrees, mandates that the court executing the decree shall determine all questions arising between the parties to the suit or their representatives in relation to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree and that such questions may not be adjudicated in a separate suit. What is intended by conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the executing court is to prevent needless and unnecessary litigation and to achieve speedy disposal of the questions arising for discussion in relation to the execution, 13 discharge or satisfaction of the decree.”