Execution of Eviction Decree Limited to Suit Premises; Additional Claims Not Permissible: Bombay High Court

"Eviction Decree Restricted to One Hut; Recovery of Additional Land Requires Fresh Proceedings" - In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court dismissed a revision application filed by The Willingdon Sports Club, holding that the eviction decree obtained by the Club pertained solely to one hut in the servant quarters described in the suit. The Court emphasized that the Club cannot extend the scope of the decree to claim possession of a larger portion of land or structures not originally part of the suit.

The Court clarified that the description of the suit property in the plaint was limited to the hut occupied by the defendant, located in the southernmost corner of Plot-A, as demarcated by green shading on the annexed map. It held that any claims to additional land or structures would require fresh legal proceedings.

The Willingdon Sports Club filed a suit in 1987 for eviction of an employee, Nagnesh Akhade (since deceased), who had been allotted a hut in the servant quarters on Plot-A. The suit was based on the employee’s resignation in 1986, after which he refused to vacate the premises.

The plaint described the suit premises as “one hut in the servant quarters, situated in the southernmost corner of Plot-A, demarcated by green shading on the map annexed to the plaint.” The suit was decreed in favor of the Club by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court on 30 November 2009, and the decree was upheld by the High Court in 2010.

Subsequent execution proceedings were initiated in 2010, and the decree was executed on 22 December 2015, as per the Bailiff’s report, by recovering possession of a temple and tomb that had replaced the original hut.

In 2021, the Club filed fresh applications in the executing court, seeking possession of a larger portion of land admeasuring 24,380.46 sq. ft., relying on reports from a Court Commissioner and a private architect. These applications were dismissed by the executing court, which held that the decree had already been fully executed. The Club challenged this dismissal through the present revision application.

Whether the eviction decree covered only the hut described in the plaint or included the larger portion of land (24,380.46 sq. ft.) identified in the Court Commissioner’s reports.
Whether the execution proceedings could be reopened to grant possession of additional land not explicitly covered in the decree.
Whether the revision application was maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The Court held that the eviction decree pertained only to the hut described in the plaint and not to the entire green-shaded portion of land shown in the map annexed to the plaint.

The plaint explicitly described the suit premises as “one hut in the servant quarters” located in the southernmost corner of Plot-A, with the green-shaded portion serving only as a reference for the location of the hut. The decree did not cover the entire green-shaded portion or any additional structures.

"The land shaded in green on the suit map only represented the location of the hut occupied by the original defendant. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of the hut and not the entire land or other structures on it."

The Court noted that possession of the suit premises had already been recovered in 2015 as per the Bailiff’s report, which recorded that possession of a temple and tomb, which replaced the hut, had been handed over to the Club.

The executing court correctly held that the decree was fully satisfied and that no further execution was permissible for additional land or structures.

"Even if the original hut had been replaced by other structures, such as the temple and tomb, the recovery of possession of these structures fully satisfied the decree."

The Club sought possession of additional land (24,380.46 sq. ft.) based on reports by a Court Commissioner and its private architect. The Court rejected this attempt, stating that such claims cannot be pursued in execution and require fresh legal proceedings.

"If the Plaintiff-Club seeks to recover balance portions of the land or additional structures, it must adopt necessary steps by filing appropriate proceedings. The mechanism of execution of the decree cannot be misused to recover properties not covered by the decree."

The Court Commissioner’s report, which identified a larger area as the suit premises, was deemed irrelevant as it was only meant to assist in identifying the original hut described in the plaint. The Club’s reliance on its private architect’s certificate, which claimed that the suit premises measured 24,380.46 sq. ft., was also rejected.

"The decree for possession of one hut cannot be misused to secure possession of land admeasuring 24,380.46 sq. ft. There are no pleadings, evidence, or findings in the decree supporting such claims."

The Court dismissed objections to the maintainability of the revision application under Section 115 of the CPC. It held that the order closing the execution proceedings was not interlocutory but final, as it determined the rights of the parties concerning the execution of the decree.

The revision application was dismissed. The Court held that the eviction decree had been fully satisfied by the recovery of the temple and tomb in 2015. Any further claims by the Club for additional land or structures would require fresh legal proceedings.

"Dismissal of this revision application shall have no effect on the recovery of possession already secured by the Plaintiff-Club as per the Bailiff’s report dated 22 December 2015, which has attained finality."

Date of Decision: 03 January 2025