Gurdev Singh v. Narain Singh

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: S.B. Sinha
Harjit Singh Bedi
Judgment Date: 2007-11-12
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remitted to the executing court to determine whether the Bohar tree existed prior to the decree, and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; matter remanded to executing court for determination of whether the Bohar tree existed prior to passing of the decree.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Gurdev Singh

Respondents

Narain Singh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sarup Singh
• Yash Pal Dhingra
• Kuldip Singh

Counsels for Respondents

• F G.S. Punia
• Davender Mohan Verma
• Minakshi Vij

Case Synopsis & Summary

Gurdev Singh v. Narain Singh arises from a decree of permanent injunction passed in 1989, restraining the defendant from planting trees on specific Khasras in the village Abbupura (Jagraon, Ludhiana). The decree-holder sought execution, including an order for removal of a Bohar tree alleged to lie within two karams of the common boundary. An Local Commissioner’s report indicated the tree’s proximity to the boundary and suggested its partial encroachment, but did not state whether the tree existed at the time of the decree. The executing court, relying on this report, construed the decree in a manner that prohibited any tree within two karams and directed removal of the Bohar tree within a month. The High Court affirmed that order. The appellant contended that the decree only prohibited planting new trees and did not authorize removal of an already existing tree, and that the executing court cannot go behind the decree or extend its terms by construction. He argued for interpreting the spirit of the decree within its literal terms and for remitting back to the executing court rather than ordering removal. The Supreme Court agreed that execution cannot transcend the decree’s plain terms, held that the decree did not empower removal by execution, and remitted the matter to determine whether the Bohar tree existed prior to the decree, so that proceedings could continue in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Executing court cannot go behind the decree; the decree must be given effect as written.
Spirit of the decree should be understood in light of its plain terms, not expanded by execution.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argued that the decree of permanent injunction restrained the defendant from planting trees on specified Khasras but did not authorize removal of a tree already planted. The executing court cannot go behind the decree or expand its scope through construction in the name of enforcing the spirit of the decree. The decree-holder’s request for removal of an already existing tree exceeds the consent of the decree and requires modification of the decree through proper channels, not execution proceedings. The Court should determine whether the Bohar tree existed before the decree and remit the matter for lawful determination rather than ordering removal.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the executing court may construe the decree to give effect to its spirit, which could include removing trees that lie within restricted zones to enforce the injunction. They argued that the local commissioner's findings and the decree’s spirit support removing the Bohar tree if it falls within the prohibited area to preserve the decree’s enforceability.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_-+ I_ ~ _1_ • # GURDEV SINGH _V._ # NARAIN SINGH NOVEMBER 12, 2007 **[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]** _Execution of decree-Jurisdiction of executing court-Decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant from planting tree on suit land-Application for execution praying/or removal of trees from suit_ c _land-Allowed by executing court observing that clear and plain meaning of decree was that there should be no tree on the specified site-HELD: Executing court cannot go behind the decree-As decree did not clothe decree-holder to pray for execution of decree by way of removal of trees, same could not have been directed by executing court_ D _in the name of construing the spirit of decree under execution-Matter remitted to executing court to determine as to whether tree in question was in existence prior to passing of the decree or not._ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5237 of EI 2007. From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.2.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No. 4526/2004. _>-_ > Sarup Singh, Y ash Pal Dhingra and Kuldip Singh for the Appellant. F G.S. Punia, Davender Mohan Verma and Minakshi Vij for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered by ## **ORDER** G -{ Leave granted . Respondent herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the 1093 H ' t 1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. _ A appellant. The suit was marked as Civil Suit No. 226 of 1987. A decree for permanent injunction was passed by the le'arned trial Judge on 19 .1.1989, the operative portion whereof reads as under: B c "'I)lls suit comes today before me (Balbir Singh PCS, Addi. Senior Sub Judge Jagraon) f~r final disposal, in the presence of the counsel for the parties, it is ordered that:(illegible) the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from planting tree on the Khasra No. 17/2 on the one side and Khasra No. 218/1 and 17 /1 on the other side situate in the area of village Abbupura Tehsil, Jagraon, District Ludhiana peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to their own costs." The decree holder filed an application for execution of the decree D praying, _inter alia,_ for removal of the tree from the lands in question. A Commissioner was appointed. He submitted a report stating as under: - (i) I compared the site plan with the situation of the disputed . property where tree of Bohar exists. - E F G - (ri) I measured the distance of Bohar tree from the common butt of Khasra Nos. 17 /2 and 218/1 with the help ofa measurement tape. The centre point of Butt upto the centre point of radius ofBohar tree is 11 feet i.e. 2 karams. - (Iii) The branches of Bohar tree comes across the common Butt into Khasra No. 218/1 approximately 6/7 feets. - (iv) I prepared a rough site plan at the spot, which is also attached herewith. According to my observation the half portion of the Bohar tree falls within two karams from the common Butt of properties of the parties." _.I.,_ ~ ' '-.I \.- The learned Commissioner in his report did not state that the Bohar tree was planted after passing of the decree. ~ The executing Court relying on or the basis of the said report **==> picture [6 x 6] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> I-<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> H _i_ _1_ GURDEV SINGH _v._ NARAIN SINGH 1095 also some decisions of this Court while holding that the executing Court A has the requisite jurisdiction to construe a decree, opined as under: " Now applying ratio of the above said cases this Court has to see what was spirit of the decree which was under execution and clear that the plain meaning of the decree is that there should no tree within two karams on either side of the common boundary B' of the parties and if it is there, the executing court can very well order its removal in order to give effect to the spirit of the decree. In the present case, it has been reported by the Local Commissioner that the tree is within 2 karams. Moreover, J.D. C does not plead any claim over that tree. Rather he pleads it to be a naturally grown tree. So, in these circumstances direction is given to the J.D. to remove the trees which is standing within 2 karams of the common butt within a period of one month from today." By reason of the impugned judgment the High Court has affirmed D the said order. Mr. Swamp Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the executing Court as also the High Colllt committed a manifest error in interpreting the decree. E We agree with the said contention. A bare perusal of the decree in question would clearly demonstrate that the appellant herein was restrained by a permanent injunction from planting any tree on khasra Nos. 17/2 on the one side and khasra No. 218/1and1711 on the other side. The decree F did not speak of removal of any tree which had already been planted. The executing Court, as noticed hereinbefore, while interpreting the said decree proceeded completely on a wrong premise to hold that there should not be any tree within two karams on either side of the common boundary of the parties. Such an interpretation evidently is not in G consonance with the tenor of the decree. A jurisdictional error, thus, has been committed by the High Court. It is well stated that executing Court cannot go behind the decree. As the decree did not clothe the decree holder to pray for execution of H \ ~· \ 1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R. A the decree by way of removal of the trees, the same could not have been directed by the learned executing Court in the name of construing the spirit of the decree under execution. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter B to the executing Court for determination of the question as to whether the Bohar tree in .question was in existertce prior to passing of the decree or not. The executing Court thereafter may proceed with the matter in accordance with law. c RP. The appeal is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.