SULTANA BEGUM versus PREM CHAND JAIN

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 10-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
SULTANA BEGUM 
v. 
PREM CHAND JAIN 
DECEMBER 10, 1996 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 47, Order 21 Rule 2. 
Adjustment of decree-Uncertified-Out of Court-Compromise decree 
provided handing over of vacant possession of premises to landlady by certain 
dat~Subsequently tenant allowed to remain in possession of premises on 
payment of licence fee-Held: such uncertified adjustment of decree could not 
be entertained by executing court-Tenant could have avoided decree by 
getting fresh lease of premises and not a licence-Hence decree remained 
preserved and creation of licence had not the effect of destroying it. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Section 47, Order 21 Rule r-<:onflict between-Held : there was no 
conflict between .S.47, 0.21 R.2-S.47 related to powers and jurisdiction of 
executing Cou(t while 0.21 R2 dealt with procedure relating to discharge or 
satisfaction of decree outside court or adjustment in any other manner by 
consensual arrangement-Even if there was any conflict between two E 
provisions the maxim 'generalia specialibus non derogant' would 
app/y--{]eneral provision contained in S.47 must yield to special provision 
contained in 0.21 R.2. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Inte'l'retatio~asic rules of-Harmonious construction-Principle 
of-Inconsistent or repugnant provisions-Held: must be construed so as to 
harmonise them in order to give effect to purpose of Act-Statute has to be 
read as a whole to find out real intention of legislature. 
The appellant was the landlady of the premises in dispute which was 
in occupation of the respondent as a tenant against whom a suit for eviction 
F 
G 
was filed by the appellant. The suit ended in a compromise decree which 
provided that the respondent would vacate the premises and handover its 
possession to the appellant or to her attorney by a certain date. Since the 
premises were not vacated by the respondent and its possession was not H 
707 
708 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A handed over to the appellant in terms of the compromise decree, she filed 
an application for execntion which was resisted by the respondent by means 
or objections filed under Section 47 or the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in 
which it was pleaded by him that possession of the premises in question 
was handed over to the attorney who allowed the respondent to remain in 
possession of the premises as a licensee. The trial court allowed the objec-
B tions of the respondent and it was found by the trial court that the decree 
had become inexecutable. The finding of the trial was upheld by the High 
Court 1n its revisional jurisdiction. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that there was a 
C conflict between Section 47 and Order 21 Rnle 2 of the CPC and that the 
only way in which the conflict conld be resolved was to hold that Section 
47 wonld prevail over Order 21 Role 2 CPC. . 
Allowing the appeal, this Conrt 
D 
HELD : 1.1. The plea relating to the delivery of possession in pur-
suance of the compromise decree, if accepted, wonld amount to an adjust-
ment of the !lecree which shall consequently be treated to have been 
partially satisfied from the disputed property. That being so, it has to be 
recorded and certified under Order 21 Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908. Since this was not done, the provisions of Order 21 Rule 2 (3) 
E prohibiting the executing court from giving effect to the said plea were 
applicable and the executing court acted erroneously in refusing to 
execute the decree for eviction of the respondent on the ground that 
possession having been delivered to the appellant's attorney, the decree, 
to that extent, stood satisfied. [721-A-C] 
F 
1.2. Where an application is given by a decree-holder for certification of 
payment or recording an adjustment, Order 21 Rule 2 presents no difficulty. 
Where, however, an application is given by the ju!lgment-debtor to the court 
for the certification, the court has to act judicially. [721-H; 722-A-B] 
G 
1.3. It is no doubt open to the parties to adjnst or compromise their 
rights under the decree, bnt if it amonnts to adjustment of decree, it must 
be reported to the court whose duty it is to execute the decree so that that 
court may record or certify the same. If it is not done, the court before whom 
the execution proceedings are initiated will proceed to execute the decree. 
It is not every time that the decree-holder and judgment- de

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