Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court and lower courts' orders, and directed the restoration of the execution proceedings. The Court clarified that a satisfaction recorded in a prior execution petition does not bar the filing of subsequent execution petitions if new instances of interference arise. The matter was remitted to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Champaran, for fresh consideration.

The case stems from a dispute over agricultural land bearing Field Nos. 4810-4811 situated in Village Kharkhari, Tehsil and District Champawat. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed Civil Suit No. 44 of 1988 seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents. The suit culminated in a decree, granting the plaintiffs a permanent injunction against interference with their peaceful possession of the specified agricultural field.

Also Read: Supreme Court Holds In-Charge SHO Competent To Conduct NDPS Search | High Court Manifestly Erred In Interpreting Section 42 Of The Act | Trial Directed To Continue Expeditiously

Subsequently, a supplementary sale deed dated 22.08.1998, issued in favor of the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of defendant No. 3, was cancelled. The appellants-initiated execution proceedings, presuming obstruction to their peaceful possession.

The first execution petition was closed as per Annexure P-4 when both the decree-holder and judgment-debtor were absent. Notably, the judgment-debtor submitted a written undertaking before the Court asserting that they were not causing any obstruction or interference. In the absence of the decree-holder, the Court assumed full satisfaction and recorded it accordingly. A subsequent execution petition was reportedly filed but not pressed.

The present matter originated from the third execution petition filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiffs, i.e., the appellants herein. The appellants filed EP No. 2 of 2012. The respondents raised objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that they asserted title based on a sale deed dated 29.09.1984, and that only the supplemental deed of 1998 had been cancelled. The respondents also claimed that they had initiated proceedings before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, to set aside the decree dated 19.07.2000.

The Executing Court dismissed the EP, reasoning that full satisfaction had already been recorded in the earlier proceedings. This dismissal was affirmed by the Revisional Court and subsequently by the High Court, which also dismissed the review petition.

Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court through the present appeals.

The Supreme Court recorded that "the High Court has misconstrued the entire case" and found that the objections raised by the respondents were unsustainable. It further observed that "a satisfaction recorded in one EP would not result in the dismissal of a further EP filed on the ground of a subsequent interference caused."

The Court referred to Article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, noting that while a period of 12 years is prescribed for execution of any decree, the proviso specifically states there is no limitation to enforce or execute a decree granting perpetual injunction. The Court held that "when a permanent injunction is granted, it operates perpetually against the judgment debtors, their assignees and successors, and it could be enforced at any time breach is occasioned."

It also stated that "the decree-holder, their assignees and successors, has a perpetual right in personam against the decree holders, their assignees and successors."

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Quashes BBMP’s Construction Approval | Landowners Retain No Title After Conveying Undivided Share | Entire Plot Stood In The Ownership Of Apartment Owners Collectively

The Court found the orders of the High Court, Executing Court, and Revisional Court to be legally flawed and set them aside.

The Supreme Court directed that the execution petition (EP No. 2 of 2012) shall stand restored. The Court clarified that its observations regarding the claim raised under Section 47 of the CPC are only prima facie and shall not govern the Executing Court’s consideration of the objections. The Court further allowed the judgment-debtor to produce before the Executing Court the result of the proceedings initiated for cancellation of the decree.

With these directions, the matter was remitted to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Champaran, for fresh consideration in light of the findings hereinabove. However, the sustainability of the decree and the pending cancellation proceedings would fall for consideration exclusively before the Executing Court.

The appeals were accordingly allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Nishit Agrawal, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Sankalp Suman, Advocate; Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Kusum Sapna Chhetri, Advocate; Ms. Megha Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Aniruddha Ghosh, Advocate; Mr. Anshuman Mohanty, Advocate

Case Title: Saraswati Devi & Ors. vs. Santosh Singh & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 715

Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos…….……. of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020)

Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

[Read/Download order]