GURDEV SINGH versus NARAIN SINGH

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 1093 · Decided: 12-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
• 
1 
-+ 
I 
>-
-{ 
GURDEV SINGH 
A 
V. 
NARAIN SINGH 
NOVEMBER 12, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
B 
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 
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 
"'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 
c 
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: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(i) I compared the site plan with the situation of the disputed 
. property where tree of Bohar exists. 
-
(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." 
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 as 
' t 
_.I.,_ 
t:: 
~ 
' 
'-.-
I 
~ 
\.-
~ 
I-
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 a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.