Safiya Malik

A recent judgement by the High Court of Delhi has set aside an order by the execution court that modified a decree in a property possession dispute. The court held that an execution court cannot go beyond the terms of the decree and must ensure compliance strictly in accordance with the judgment. The judgement was passed in response to objections raised in an execution petition related to the possession of a disputed property in Civil Lines, Delhi.

The dispute originated when the petitioners, Devi Charan & Anr., filed a suit seeking possession of a specific portion of property No. 1, Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, measuring 305 square yards. The suit was filed against the respondents, Ranpat Singh & Ors., who were in possession of the said property. The petitioners sought a decree for possession, claiming that the portion marked as 'E', 'F', 'G', and 'H' in the site plan submitted in the trial belonged to them.

The respondents, in their defense, asserted that they had been in possession of 400 square yards of the property since 1937 and had acquired ownership through adverse possession. They contended that their long-term occupation of the land entitled them to ownership rights. However, the trial court examined the evidence and dismissed their claim, concluding that the respondents failed to substantiate their claim with appropriate documentation or an alternative site plan to support their case.

On April 16, 2018, the trial court decreed in favor of the petitioners, directing the respondents to vacate the marked portions of the property within two months. The court explicitly stated that possession must be handed over in accordance with the site plan (Ex. PW-4/9), which had been accepted as evidence.

Also Read: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Airline Ticket Forgery Case, Holds "Appellant Alone Could Have Manipulated the Document"

Following the decree, the petitioners-initiated Execution Petition No. 1089/2018 to enforce the judgment. The respondents objected to the execution, arguing that the measurement of the property was incorrect and that the execution process was flawed. However, on October 23, 2018, the trial court dismissed these objections, holding that the decree was based on a legally established site plan that remained unchallenged during the trial proceedings.

During execution proceedings, the trial court, on April 25, 2019, directed the appointment of a Junior Engineer from North Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) to measure the decreed premises and ensure proportional division of the property’s front face. The court observed:

“In order to measure the decreed premises properly, the concerned area Junior Engineer (Building), North DMC, Delhi, shall help in measurement of the decreed premises measuring 305 square yards, out of the total land in possession of the JDs in Property No.1, Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi.”

Further, the court directed that the measurement be conducted in a way that would allow the petitioners to receive possession of a rectangular portion rather than a triangular one, in proportion to the total land found in possession of the respondents. The order detailed:

“The front face of the decreed premises admittedly measures around 33.2 ft. from point 'E' to 'H' as shown in site plan Ex. PW4/9. Anyhow, the bailiff shall measure and give the proportionate front to the DH in relation to the total measurement of the land in possession of the JDs.”

The trial court also suggested proportional distribution based on the respondents’ claimed land area:

“For example, suppose the total land in possession of the JDs measures 400 square yards, whereas, the decree is for 305 square yards, the DH shall be entitled to 3/4 of the front.”

The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that the execution court exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the decree. They contended that the decree had already identified the property boundaries, and the execution court could not alter the scope of the decree by introducing a proportional apportionment of the property.

The High Court, in its judgement, agreed with the petitioners, stating:

“The execution court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction by directing apportionment which was neither sought in the suit nor granted by the decree.”

The court further stated:

“Since the petitioners obtained a decree of possession of the land identified as ‘E’, ‘F’, ‘G’, & ‘H’ in the site plan Ex. PW-4/9, the decree must be executed in terms of the same even though the actual area within that boundary exceeded the area mentioned in the plaint.”

It was also noted that the respondents had already contested the measurement during trial and their objections had been dismissed on October 23, 2018. The High Court observed:

“The respondents did not furnish an alternative site plan or any evidence to support their claims. Thus, their objections regarding measurement had already been considered and rejected by the trial court.”

The High Court also held that an execution court cannot re-adjudicate or modify a decree during execution proceedings. The judgment recorded:

“The executing court’s power is limited to enforcing the decree as it stands. Any modification or apportionment at this stage would amount to re-adjudication, which is beyond the scope of execution proceedings.”

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Finds ‘Failure to Address Key Issues,’ Sets Aside Trial Court Order and Directs Fresh Consideration of Scientific Investigation in Easementary Dispute

In light of these observations, the High Court set aside the order dated April 25, 2019, to the extent that it directed proportional division of the property. It stated that the execution court must ensure possession is delivered strictly in conformity with the boundaries marked in the site plan (Ex. PW-4/9). The court directed the trial court to issue necessary orders for enforcement without any modification of the decree.

It further stated:

“The executing court ought to have interpreted the decree in a meaningful manner by directing that the possession of the entire premises as demarcated as ‘E’, ‘F’, ‘G’ & ‘H’ in the site plan Ex. PW-4/9 be delivered to the petitioners.”

The High Court also noted that the respondents’ repeated objections amounted to an abuse of the judicial process:

“Raising similar objections again amounts to an abuse of process of the Court.”

The trial court was directed to expedite the execution and ensure that possession was handed over in accordance with the decree.

Case Title: Devi Charan & Anr. vs. Ranpat Singh & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 1420

Case Number: CM(M) 915/2019

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

[Read/Download order]