Summary
HPCL ran two petrol pumps on contiguous plots at Azadpur, Delhi: Plot 4/4, leased by the respondent's grandfather to Caltex, and Plot 4/5, originally leased to Esso and partly Delhi Government land. The respondent obtained a decree for possession of Plot 4/4 (9,700 sq. ft.) under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, with mesne profits later fixed at Rs. 50,000 a month from 1 March 2006. In execution, relying on the hand-drawn site plan annexed to the plaint, he took possession of land including part of Plot 4/5. The Executing Court and the High Court rejected HPCL's objections. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals. The decree covered only Plot 4/4 and could not be executed against Plot 4/5. The Executing Court must appoint a Revenue Officer as Local Commissioner to demarcate Plot 4/4 and restore any excess land to HPCL. Mesne profits are to be recomputed.
Issues
- Whether a decree for possession of Plot 4/4 can be executed against the adjoining Plot 4/5 or Delhi Government land on the basis of a hand-drawn plan annexed to the plaint
- Whether the Executing Court must ascertain and demarcate the decretal property where it is not definitely identified
- How mesne profits are to be computed where possession of the wrong land was taken in execution
Provisions considered
- Order VII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908A plaint for immovable property must describe it sufficiently to identify it, by boundaries or survey numbers where available; the hand-drawn plan did not identify Plot 4/4. (¶¶ 37, 49)
- Section 47 and Order XX Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Following Pratibha Singh, where the decretal property is not definitely identified, its exact extent is a question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree for the Executing Court to determine. (¶¶ 50, 51)
- Order XX Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The respondent remains entitled to mesne profits on the decree for possession, to be computed afresh at the rate fixed by the Trial Court as modified by the High Court. (¶¶ 52, 53, 56)
Held
- The plaint, prayer and decree concerned only Plot 4/4, originally leased to Caltex. Plot 4/5 had been leased separately to Esso, fell to other heirs who were not plaintiffs, and was partly Delhi Government land. There was no finding that 4/4 and 4/5 were mere landmarks. The decree was therefore not executable against Plot 4/5, and the respondent must restore any part of it he had taken. (¶¶ 14, 18, 44, 45, 46, 48)
- A decree should not, so far as practicable, be defeated, but it can be executed only against suit property that is identifiable. Where the plaint did not identify the property by boundaries, the Executing Court must determine the extent of the decretal property under Section 47 by appointing a Revenue Officer as Local Commissioner to demarcate Plot 4/4. (¶¶ 49, 50, 51, 56)
- The decree for possession of Plot 4/4 has become final, and the respondent is entitled to possession and to mesne profits at Rs. 50,000 a month from 1 March 2006. The amount must be recomputed, taking all relevant factors into account, in terms of the decree as modified by the High Court, up to relinquishment of possession of the suit property. The intervener's claim that part of the Tej Service Station land belongs to the Delhi Government required consideration. (¶¶ 47, 53, 54, 55, 56)
Result
Appeals allowed and the High Court's order set aside. The execution applications are remitted for fresh decision: Plot 4/4 is to be demarcated through a Revenue Officer and delivered to the respondent, excess land restored to HPCL, and mesne profits recomputed.