Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree under execution

The Supreme Court reiterated that an executing court cannot go behind a decree and re-examine the merits of the case of the parties. The above ratio was delivered by the Supreme Court in the matter of S. Bhaskaran vs. Sebastian (dead) by LRs in Civil Appeal No. 7800 of 2014 decided on 13.09.2019.

Challenge

The suit temple was administered by three brothers. Vide a settlement deed these original owners endowed the property to the temple. The deed also included a provision that the eldest son of the deceased trustee would become his successor. A suit was filed on behalf of the temple by the Appellant in his capacity as trustee, seeking permanent injunction against Gnanambal and her husband, who were tenants in the suit properties at that time. One Umapathymurthy was impleaded in this suit as a defendant who claimed that he was the eldest son of one of the original owners and that he had been dispossessed from the trusteeship of the temple by his younger brother.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Appellant holding that he was a trustee and rejected the claim of Umapathymurthy. The said decree was affirmed by the first appellate court. The decree holders subsequently filed an Execution Petition. However, the judgment debtors (Respondents herein) filed an execution application under Section 47 of the CPC seeking dismissal of the execution petition on the basis that the original decree was vitiated by fraud as the heir certificate was falsely prepared. The said application under Section 47 of CPC was dismissed by the executing court as non-maintainable on the ground that the judgment of the Trial Court had been confirmed by the First Appellate Court after considering all relevant evidence, and had therefore become final. The said order of the executing court was challenged in revision before the High Court where the said order was reversed.

Held

The Supreme Court disagreed with the view of the High Court and reiterated that it is well-settled that an executing court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution. In the present case, the Trial Court had already considered the evidence on record and given a finding that the Appellant was the trustee of the temple. This judgment was confirmed by the First Appellate Court and no further appeal was preferred by the Respondents against it. Therefore, an affirmed decree could not be varied now at the stage of execution.