Mohini Palul @ Mohini Kumar Paul & Ors vs Satya Narayan Mishra
2025 Latest Caselaw 4596 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mohini Palul @ Mohini Kumar Paul & Ors vs Satya Narayan Mishra on 7 April, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                            Second Appeal No. 280 of 2023

                Mohini Palul @ Mohini Kumar Paul & Ors.
                                                             ...      ...      Appellants
                                          Versus
                Satya Narayan Mishra                   ...        ...       Respondent
                               ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate : Mr. M. M. Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Ashish Gautam, Advocate

---

15/07.04.2025 This case has been called out out of turn at the request of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent has also appeared to argue this case. The arguments of the case have commenced.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 (Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others) and has submitted that the description of the suit property was vague and consequently, the decree is also vague. He has further submitted that it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all Courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the guidelines mentioned in paragraph 42 of the said judgment. He has in particular referred to paragraph 42.5 of the said judgment wherein it has been held that the Court must, before passing the decree pertaining to delivery of possession of a property, ensure that the decree is unambiguous so as not only contain clear description of the property, but also has regard to the status of the property. The learned counsel has submitted that an objection in connection with description of the suit property being vague was taken in the written statement as well, but none of the courts have framed this issue and ultimately, the decree has been passed to give vacant possession of the suit property, description of which is vague.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the judgment has to be read as a whole and the filing of the suit was preceded by an Amin Report. He submits that in the Amin Report, it was clearly mentioned that the defendants were in possession of 7 ½ decimal of land and as per the sale-deed of the defendants, they are entitled to only 5 decimals of land. He has submitted that once the entitlement of the defendants is clear, the defendants have to evict 2 ½ decimal of land and therefore, according to him the decree is an executable decree. He submits that the matter be posted tomorrow so that he may place judgments as to how the executing court has to read the judgment.

4. Post this case tomorrow i.e. on 08th April 2025 for further hearing to be taken up at 02.15 p.m.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj