The High Court of Tripura dismissed a revision petition challenging an executing court order. Confirming that a prior decree in favour of a third party held priority, the court upheld directions to first satisfy that decree before executing remedies for subsequent decree holders against overlapping land titles.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA A G A R T A L A
CRP NO.137 OF 2015
1. Shri Radha Raman Debnath,
2. Shri Narayan Chandra Debnath ,
3. Shri Uttam Kr. Debnath,
All are sons of late Gopal Chandra Debnath All are residents of North Bank of Mahadev Dighi, Udaipur Town, Post office – R.K. Pur, Pin – 799120 Police Station – R.K. Pur, District – Gomati, Tripura.
.…......Petitioners.
– V e r s u s –
Shri Uttam Bal,
S/o. Shri Mrinal Kanti Bal, Resident of North Chandrapur, Post office – R.K. Pur, Pin – 799120 Police Station – R.K. Pur, District – Gomati, Tripura
….......... Respondent.
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. DEEPAK GUPTA
For the petitioners : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate. Mr. D. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate. Mr. H. Laskar, Advocate. For the respondent : None. Date of hearing and : 05.01.2016. delivery of judgment
Whether fit for reporting : NO .
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
This petition is directed against the order, dated 07.09.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div) Gomati District, Udaipur, South Tripura in Title Execution Case No.10 of 2007. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:-
“However, during execution if it is found necessary Survey Commissioner shall be appointed so that decree can be executed properly.
Thus, the decree holder is directed to submit Draft Deed along with requisites on the next date.
Fix 21-09-2015 for filing of Draft Deed by the Decree holder.”
CRP No.137 of 2015 Page 2 of 14
CRP No.137 of 2015 Page 3 of 14
No.10 of 2006 in respect of judgment passed in T.S.11 of 2003. Both the appeals were heard and disposed of by the Appellate Court in the following terms:-
“4. The appellate-decree dated 07.04.2007 in Title Appeal No.10/2006 arising out of case No. T.S.11/2003 is as follows:-
“In view of the findings and decision arrived at in the preceding paragraphs of the judgment I do hereby set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.6.06 and 12.7.06 of the Ld. Court below which were passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr.Div), South Tripura, Udaipur in connection with Title Suit No.11 of 2003.
I do hereby allow the appeal of the appellant. The recasting of prayers of the appellant is required to avoid future complication. The Title suit of the appellant bearing No.11 of 2003 is decreed according to his prayer and it is as follows:-
First, the appellant is entitled to have the direction that the respondents No.1 to 8 shall have to execute a registered sale-deed in the name of the appellant for the suit land as described in the schedule of the plaint of the T.S.11 of 2003 within two months from today on receipt of the balance amount of Rs.1,65,000/(Rupees one lakh sixty-five thousand) only from him.
The appellant is directed to hand over the balance consideration of the suit land to the respondents No.1 to 8 in the presence of the District Registrar, South Tripura, Udaipur.
CRP No.137 of 2015 Page 4 of 14
Secondly, the appellant is entitled to have the direction that the respondents No.1 to 8 shall have to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land to the appellant after executing the registered sale deed for the same.
Thirdly, the respondents are perpetually restrained from entering into the suit land and/or disturbing the peaceful possession of the appellant over the same. This relief will come into effect as soon as the entire process of selling of the suit land by the respondents No.1 to 8 and handing over the vacant possession of the suit land to the appellant will be completed.
Fourthly, the appellant is also entitled to have a decree that if the respondents No.1 to 8 fail to execute the sale deed for the suit land as described in the schedule of the plaint of T.S.11/03 within the stipulated period of two months from today the said deed will be executed by the Court. The appellant shall have to approach the Court with the stamp papers, registration fees and other relevant documents and in that occasion the Sheristadar of the District Judge’s Court will execute the deed for the suit land on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 8 after observing all formalities and will also hand over the vacant possession of the suit land to him after removing all obstruction therefrom.
The appellant being the plaintiff of the Title Suit bearing No.11 of 2003 did not seek this relief though it was/is a necessary one to avoid multiplicity of suits/cases. This relief is given to the appellant suo motu keeping in mind
CRP No.137 of 2015 Page 5 of 14
that in absence of this relief complication may be arisen in future.
Lastly, the parties to the appeal will bear their respective costs.
Other reliefs claimed by the appellant as plaintiff in the Title Suit No.11 of 2003 are ignored as these are redundant.”
“5. The appellate decree dated 7.4.2007 made in Title Appeal No.12 of 2005 arising out of T.S.21/2003 is as follows:-
“In view of the findings and decision arrived at in the preceding paragraphs of the judgment I do hereby allow the appeal of the appellant with some modification.
The judgment and decree of the Ld. Court below dated 7-11-2005 and 10-112005 which was passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Div), South Tripura, Udaipur in c/w T.S. No.21/2003 is upheld with the following modification of the entire relief portion of the prayers of the principal respondents.
First, the principal respondents (Plaintiffs of the T.S. 21/03 are entitled to have the direction that the respondents shall have to execute a registered sale-deed in the name of the principal respondents of this appeal for a plot of land within their land as described in the schedule of the plaint of the T.S.21/03 excluding the portion of the land of the appellant as described in the schedule of the plaint of the T.S.No.11/03 (Exhibit-A of the T.S.21/2003) within sixty days from today after receiving the
CRP No.137 of 2015 Page 6 of 14
balance amount of Rs.1,49,000/-, only from the principal respondents.
Secondly, the respondents shall have to hand over the vacant possession of the land which they will transfer to the names of the principal respondents by a registered sale-deed in pursuance of the decree of the instant appeal.
Thirdly, the principal respondents (Plaintifs of the T.S.21/03) are also entitled tof have a decree that if the respondents fail to execute the sale deed for the suit land as stated above within the stipulated period of sixty days from today the said deed will be executed by the Court. The principal respondents (Plaintifs of T.S.21/03), in thatf occasion shall have to approach the Court with the stamp papers, registration fees and other relevant documents and the Sheristadar of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div) will execute the sale-deed for the land in question as stated above on behalf of the respondents after observing all formalities and will also hand over the vacant possession of the same to the principal respondents after removing all obstructions therefrom.
And lastly the parties to the appeal will bear their respective costs.
The other reliefs as claimed by the principal respondents in their Title Suit bearing the No.21/03 as plaintifs are redundant andf these are hence ignored.”
CRP No.137 of 2015 Page 7 of 14
CRP No.137 of 2015 Page 8 of 14
to them and thereby, the decree passed in T.S.No.21 of 2003 and T.A. No.12 of 2005 was deemed to be satisfied.
CRP No.137 of 2015 Page 9 of 14
“15. Hence, Order dated 8.4.2011 passed by the learned executing Court in Case No. Civil Misc.38/2010 is hereby set aside and quashed. The case is remanded back to the learned executing Court with a direction to determine the following points:-
(1) Whether the description of the land purchased by the present O.Ps from Bhanu Rani Ghosh and others tallies with the description of the decretal land of case No. T.S. 21/2003 and connected Title Appeal No. 12/2005?
(2) Whether the present appellant as holder of decree in case No. T.S.11/2003 and connected Title Appeal No.10/2006, claims execution of such decree in respect of the land which is under possession of the present O.Ps?
(3) Whether Bhanu Rani Ghosh and others have any land remaining in Khatian No.626 plot No. 4525 and 4526, for execution of the decree of the appellant, apart from the land which is under possession of the O.Ps?”
“10. If the rule of law is to prevail in the country then the executing Court must ensure
CRP No.137 of 2015 Page 10 of 14
that decrees are executed in letter and spirit. The decree passed by the Appellate Court was absolutely clear that first the decree passed in Title Suit No.11 of 2003 had to be satisfied and thereafter out of the remaining land of Bhanu Rani Ghosh the decree passed in Title Suit No.21 of 2003 was to be satisfied. The fact that the present petitioners and the original venders i.e. defendants 1 to 8 were conniving with each other is apparent from the fact that in Title Suit No.11 of 2003 the defence of the defendants 1 to 8 was that they have entered into an agreement with defendants 9 to 11 and are willing to transferred land in favour of defendants 9 to 11 (petitioner herein). The learned Appellate Court vide the impugned order has only directed that the executing Court to find out what is the description of the land purchased by the present petitioners from Bhanu Rani Ghosh and whether it tallies with the description of the decreetal land in T.S. No.21 of 2003 or not. Secondly, whether the present appellant as holder of decree in T.S.11 of 2003 claims possession of the land in possession of the present petitioners? It would be pertinent to mention that in all fairness Bhanu Rani Ghosh and others should not have executed sale deed in favour of the present petitioners without first satisfying the decree passed in favour of Uttam Bal.
11. Therefore, the petition filed by the present petitioners is found to be totally without any substance and the order of the learned District Judge is upheld. It is further directed that even if the present petitioners are found to be in possession of some land to
CRP No.137 of 2015 Page 11 of 14
which Uttam Bal is entitled to in terms of the decree passed in T.S.No.11 of 2003 they can even in this executing proceedings be dispossessed of the land and if after satisfying the decree passed in favour of Uttam Bal, Bhanu Rani Ghosh and others have sufficient land remaining in Khatian No.626, plot No.4525 and 4526 to satisfy the decree and thereafter, the decree passed in favour of the present petitioners shall be executed and satisfied.”
CRP No.137 of 2015 Page 12 of 14
CRP No.137 of 2015 Page 13 of 14
is found necessary Survey Commissioner shall be appointed so that decree can be executed properly. From the pleadings of the parties itself I find that the petitioners themselves are in no uncertain terms virtually admitting that they are in possession of Plot No.4525. The learned trial Court has only to verify whether Plot No.4525 is part of the suit land in Title Suit No.11 of 2003 filed by Shri Uttam Bal. If the land which is in possession of the plaintiffs is part of the suit land as described in Title Suit No.11 of 2003 then the petitioners have to be evicted from that portion of the land.
CHIEF JUSTICE
amrita
CRP No.137 of 2015 Page 14 of 14
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the executing court can direct decree holders to submit draft deeds while ensuring prior satisfaction of a conflicting decree in favour of another party.
Whether the decree holder in a later suit can claim execution against land held in possession by collusive third parties before the prior decree is satisfied.
Whether the appointment of a Survey Commissioner is a valid direction to determine overlapping land descriptions before executing successive decrees.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Radha Raman Debnath
Narayan Chandra Debnath
Uttam Kr. Debnath
Uttam Bal
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
