Jharkhand High Court
Asha Devi vs Sunil Kumar on 10 September, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:27613
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 652 of 2025
Asha Devi, W/o Nirmal Kumar, R/o Ward No.5, Village-Hulhula Kala, P.O. +
P.S. Nagar Untari, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand-822121
..... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Sunil Kumar, S/o Sri Shankar Dayal Sao, R/o Village-Hulhula Kala, P.O. +
P.S. Nagar Untari, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand-822121
2. Anil Kumar, S/o Sri Shankar Dayal Sao, R/o Village-Hulhula Kala, P.O. +
P.S. Nagar Untari, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand-822121
3. Dr. Arun Kumar, S/o Late Hiralal Sao, R/o Village-Hulhula Kala, P.O. + P.S.
Nagar Untari, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand-822121
... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate
Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate
Ms. Mrinalini Adela Tete, Advocate
Ms. Preeti Hembrom, Advocate
Ms. Singi Sharon Demta, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Ranjit Kr. Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
------
Order No. 05 / Dated : 10.09.2025.
1. Petitioner is the judgment- debtor and is aggrieved by the order dated
19.06.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Nagar Untari, Garhwa, in
Execution Case No.06/ 2020 whereby and whereunder the learned Executing
Court has ordered the following :-
"Nazir shall execute the writ of delivery of possession would, obviously,
identify and demarcate the property over which the plaintiff's right, title,
interest and possession have been declared vide judgment dated 17.09.2007
passed in Title Suit No.33 of 2002. For ascertaining the nature of decree, the
plaint averments, schedule of land, and judgment and decree prepared in the
suit are required to be read conjointly. Therefore, the fact that on technical
issues execution of a decree should not be frustrated. Hence the order made
on dated 07.03.2025 for issuance of DP stands in force".
2. The plaintiff filed the suit against the present petitioner/ judgment debtor for
declaration of the gift deed nos. 6911, 6910 dated 29.12.1998 to be valid and
that he had acquired right, title, interest and possession over the land and
house which their donor Hiralal Sao had acquired through registered sale
2025:JHHC:27613
deed executed in the Year, 1945 and 1946.
3. The suit was allowed and the decree was drawn with respect to the suit land
in plot nos. 318, 319 and 320, Khata No. 200 area 4 decimals. Defendant no.
1 was also entitled to get 1 ½ decimal of land by bazidawa through gift deed.
4. Earlier the present petitioner had moved this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6501 of
2012 which was filed by the petitioner for demarcation of her 1 and ½
decimal of land on the ground that it was a joint decree. The plea that it was
a joint decree was rejected by order passed by the writ Court on 25.09.2018,
and the executing court was directed to proceed with the execution of the
decree.
5. The judgment debtor raised the issue of executability of the decree on the
ground that decretal property could not be identified, and the objection was
rejected against which C.M.P No. 790 of 2022 was filed. This civil
miscellaneous petition was dismissed as infructuous.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that Nazir had earlier submitted its report
that the boundaries as given in the decretal property and in the gift deeds
were at variance with each other, therefore, the property could not be
identified.
7. The crux of the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in the
judgment, learned trial Court had recorded a finding with regard to 1 ½
decimal of land of the judgment debtor in plot no. 319 of Khata No. 200 and
the 4 decimals of land of the decree holder is also stated to be Plot Nos. 319
and 320, but the same is not identifiable and consequently, cannot be
executed.
8. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the decree holder that the
earlier a report given by the Nazir that there was discrepant boundary in the
decree vis-a-vis the gift deed was false and consequently, a departmental
proceeding was initiated against him and final punishment has been inflicted
by order no. 12 of 2025 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Garhwa.
9. There is no dispute whatsoever with regard to the decretal property which
has been spelled out with all clarity in the gift deed which has been vindicated
and title has been declared on its basis in the suit.
10. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, as per
the judgment and decree two decimals of land were donated in plot nos. 318
and 319 vide gift deed no. 6911 dated 29.12.1998, and two decimals of land
2025:JHHC:27613
were further donated to the decree holder in plot nos. 319 and 320 vide gift
deed no. 6910 dated 29.12.1998. The said judgment and decree have attained
finality. This property has been decreed and put into execution.
11. It is also not in dispute that the Trial Court accepted that the judgment debtor
had title over 1 ½ decimal of land in plot no. 319.
12. By the impugned order, the Executing Court has directed for demarcation of
share of the decree holder. It goes without saying that in the said demarcation
1 ½ decimal of land of the judgment debtor cannot be encroached upon in
plot no. 319 which has been accepted in the judgment.
13.Under the circumstance, the impugned order needs no interference as there
is no infirmity in issuing decree of possession after the identification of the
land.
14.Identification of the decreed plot of land is a ministerial act to be carried out
by the Nazir and Government Amin deputed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Garhwa taking into consideration the boundary as given in the gift deed no.
6911 dated 29.12.1998, gift deed no. 6910 dated 29.12.1998.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.
Let the execution proceeding be concluded as per the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi
& Ors., (2021) 6 SCC 418.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pawan/ -
