Jharkhand High Court
Most. Dewanti Devi vs Saroj Devi on 8 July, 2025
2025:JHHC:18288
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Revision No. 42 of 2024
--------
1. Most. Dewanti Devi, aged about 72 years, daughter of Bhola Ram,
wife of Late Kedar Singh, Resident of Village Simri, P.O. & P.S.
Dumaria, District-Gaya (Bihar)
2. Sonamati Devi, aged about 69 years, wife of Ramdeo Ram, Resident
of Village Nawkadih, P.O. Pipra, P.S. Dumaria, District-Gaya (Bihar)
3. Lalmanti Devi, aged about 66 years, wife of Rajendra Ram, Resident
of Village-Doodhpaniya, P.O. Pipra, P.S. Dumaria, District-Gaya
(Bihar)
4. Manorama Devi, aged about 60 years, wife of Dilip Singh, Resident
of Village Karmaun, P.O. & P.S. Maigra, District - Gaya (Bihar)
5. Nirmala Devi, aged about 57 years, wife of Prameshwar Ram,
Resident of Village Tonatand, P.O. & P.S. Itkhori, District-Chatra,
Jharkhand
6. Bijay Ram, aged about 63 years, son of Bhola Ram, Resident of
Village Pratappur, P.O. & P.S. Pratappur, District-Chatra (Jharkhand)
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Saroj Devi, wife of Surendra Sharma, Resident of Village Pratappur,
P.O. & P.S. Pratappur, District Chatra (Jharkhand)
2. Surendra Sharma, son of Late Ramanand Sharma, Resident of Village
Pratappur, P.O. & P.S. Pratappur, District Chatra (Jharkhand)
3. Malti Devi, wife of Late Chamari Ram, wife of Shambhu Ram,
Resident of Village Pratappur, P.O. & P.S. Pratappur, District Chatra
(Jharkhand)
4. Rajesh Ram, son of Chamari Ram, Resident of Village Pratappur,
P.O. & P.S. Pratappur, District Chatra (Jharkhand)
5. Ram Rati Devi, wife of Balram Mistri, Resident of Village Pratappur,
P.O. & P.S. Pratappur, District Chatra (Jharkhand)
... ...Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
--------
th
Order No. 13/ Dated:08 July, 2025
Present Civil Revision is directed against the order dated
04.05.2024 passed in Execution Case No. 01 of 2008 by Civil Judge,
Senior Division-III, Chatra whereby and whereunder the learned
executing Court has accepted the report of Nazir, Civil Court, Chatra to
the effect that the decree has been executed, accordingly, execution
proceeding was disposed of after rejecting the objection dated
2025:JHHC:18288
02.05.2024 raised by petitioners/judgment debtors.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as
respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that earlier the
petitioners have moved before this Hon'ble Court by filing C.M.P. No.
968 of 2022 which was dismissed on 16.02.2024 and which was
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave
Petition (C) No. 9663 of 2024 which was also dismissed. It is further
submitted that the manner in which the decree has been executed and the
execution case was finally dropped, the petitioners had filed earlier a
Civil Revision No. 26 of 2024 against the same impugned order but due
to substantial typing errors crept in the said revision, it was withdrawn
with liberty to file afresh revision application, accordingly, present Civil
Revision was filed.
4. It is further submitted that initially the Title Suit No. 03 of 1988
was filed by the plaintiff/decree holder for declaration of their right, title
and interest in respect of 17.5 decimal lands pertaining to Plot No. 622
and 623 under Khata No. 34 as described in Schedule A to the plaint
which was obtained through two registered sale deeds bearing No. 1348
and 1349 dated 04.03.1985. It is further submitted that the suit of the
plaintiff was decreed on contest and it was held by the learned trial Court
that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his right, title and interest
over the 15.5 decimal lands in stead of 17.5 decimal land in the aforesaid
Khata and Plots of Schedule A property through registered sale deeds.
The petitioners/defendants preferred an appeal against the decree passed
by learned Sub Judge II Chatra (Hazaribag) in the aforesaid suit bearing
No. 56 of 1994 before the Learned District Judge, Hazaribag which was
also dismissed on contest but with modification in the decree to the
extent of adding two decimal lands to the decree passed by the Trial
Court. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a Second Appeal No. 329 of
2004 on 29.06.2004 before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the
decree passed by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. While
2025:JHHC:18288
pendency of the S.A. No. 329 of 2004, pleader commissioner report as
well as sketch map was submitted on 19.06.2007, thereafter, decree
holder/respondent herein filed a petition under Section 152 of the CPC
for amendment of Judgment/Decree before the First Appellate Court in
Title Appeal No. 56 of 1994 and without hearing the petitioners, the
decree was amended to the extent of including the suit property
measuring 17.5 decimal land from the northern half in stead of 15.5
decimal as mentioned in the original decree as well as for the first time
the direction of the land was included which is silent in the sale deeds as
well as in the plaint. Accordingly, learned trial Court was also directed to
prepare the final decree. It is further submitted that the aforesaid
development was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court by
filing I.A. No. 1222 of 2008 in the S.A. No. 329 of 2004. The final
decree was drawn by the Learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 3 of 1988
including the modification of the amendment vide order dated
03.12.2007 and the pleader commissioner report dated 19.06.2007 along
with map was directed to form part of the final decree.
5. Meanwhile, the execution case No. 01 of 2008 was also filed by
decree holder. It is further submitted that the S.A. No. 329 of 2004 filed
by the petitioners was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 21.05.2009
on the ground that there is no substantial question of law involved in the
S.A. It is further submitted that the petitioner approached the Hon'ble
Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 3266 of 2011 arising out of
S.L.P.(C) No. 18989 of 2009 whereby order dated 21.05.2009 passed by
the Hon'ble High Court in the S.A. was set aside along with the order
dated 03.12.2007 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Chatra.
The effect of order of Hon'ble Apex Court is that the final decree dated
11.04.2008 based on modification order dated 03.12.2007 is also null
and void and a fresh final decree ought to have been prepared on the
basis of original decree dated 05.10.1994. Therefore, the final decree and
map prepared have become non-executable. It is further submitted that
the Review Petition (C) No. 1743 of 2011 was preferred by the
2025:JHHC:18288
respondents in Civil Appeal No. 3266 of 2011 which was also dismissed
thereby making the order dated 15.04.2011 as final. It is further
submitted that the executing Court vide Order dated 17.01.2014 passed
in Execution Case No. 01 of 2008 directed the decree holder to take
further necessary step to execute the decree in respect of 15.5 decimal
land acquired from the two sale deeds. Accordingly the decree was
executed in spite of objections raised on behalf of the petitioners that the
suit property is not identifiable and description of the suit property has
not been given in the plaint or in the sale deeds forcibly executed the
decree. The objections filed by the petitioners under Section 47 read with
Order XXI Rule 35 CPC was rejected on 21.06.2017 with a cost of Rs.
1000/- vide order dated 30.01.2018. The petitioner preferred Civil
Revision No. 14 of 2018 before the Hon'ble High Court which was also
dismissed. It is further submitted that the learned Executing Court
directed the issuance of fresh writ for execution of the decree to the
extent of area 15.5 decimal and the objection was filed by the petitioner
to appoint a fresh pleader commissioner to prepare a map which was also
dismissed on 07.03.2022 and writ for delivery of possession was issued.
A recall application was also filed by the petitioner before the executing
Court which was again dismissed thereafter the petitioners filed a
petition under Article 227 bearing CMP No. 968 of 2022 before the
Hon'ble High Court for quashing the order dated 12.05.2022 passed by
executing Court which was also dismissed, thereafter, SLP No. 9663 of
2024 filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court was also dismissed vide order
dated 30.04.2024, thereafter, the executing Court proceeded with the
execution of the decree forcibly without amending the same. The decree
as well as description of the property was itself vague and unidentifiable,
therefore, all the proceedings adopted in execution of the decree are
absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction of the executing Court.
Therefore, the impugned order passed in Execution Case No. 01 of 2008
is liable to be set aside.
2025:JHHC:18288
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has
vehemently argued that the step by step objections raised on behalf of the
petitioners putting resistance in the execution of the decree passed by
learned Trial Court has been rejected upto Hon'ble Apex Court. It is
further submitted that the suit property was never unidentifiable or the
description given in the sale deeds were vague and ambiguous. The order
passed by the learned executing Court deciding to execute the decree to
the extent of 15.5 decimal acquired through two sale deeds towards
northern side was also confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court while
dismissing the Revision Petition No. 14 of 2018 filed by the present
petitioners challenging the order dated 30.01.2018 passed in Execution
Case No. 01 of 2008 wherein it was observed that "The Court below
has noted some difficulties, pointed out by the Nazir of the Court in
execution of the decree but it is only for the Court below to see that
such difficulties do not arise in execution of the decree". Therefore,
the insistence of the petitioners about identity of the suit land is vague,
absurd and beyond the record. There was no dispute about valid purchase
of the suit property through two registered sale deeds one of 9 decimals
area and second of 6.5 decimal area. The pleader commissioner
measured the land and also prepared a sketch map. The total area of the
suit plots were huge and the portion of the property was purchased. The
petitioners have no genuine claim to deny the acquisition of title by the
plaintiff/decree holder through the aforesaid sale deeds. Therefore there
is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the points of
argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners itself indicate
their failure in all respects and at all stages of the proceedings. Therefore,
present revision is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
7. I have considered the overall aspects of the case as pointed out by
the parties. It appears that the petitioners have no objection that the suit
schedule A property to the plaint was purchased by the plaintiff/decree
holder. It also appears from the two registered sale deeds that the area
purchased in two plots was total measuring 15.5 decimal although
2025:JHHC:18288
inadvertently in the schedule A of the Suit Property the area was
mentioned as 17.5 decimal. The original decree was prepared for 15.5
decimal but the first Appellate Court amended the decree and the said
amendment incorporating 17.5 decimal land was again challenged to
Hon'ble Apex Court by the petitioners and ultimately which was decided
to execute the decree in respect of 15.5 decimal land which was actually
purchased by the plaintiff/decree holder. The decree has been executed
after providing opportunities to the petitioners of hearing his objections
on merits
8. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order calling for any interference in this revision which stands dismissed.
9. Pending I.As, if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Basant
