An executing court cannot alter an unequivocal decree fixing the decree-holders’ share.

The decree-holders obtained a 1997 decree declaring Pat’s Will void, declaring them owners in possession of a 1/6th share in the suit land, and granting joint possession.

The decree was affirmed on appeal, including in RSA No. 438 of 2003.

In execution, the judgment-debtor objected that the decree-holders were entitled to only a 1/7th share, arguing that Pat’s widow was also an heir.

The executing court ordered symbolic joint possession in accordance with the decree.

The judgment-debtor challenged that order in revision, also contesting the treatment of his amended objections and the absence of framed issues.

1. Whether the executing court could revisit the decree-holders’ declared 1/6th share and limit their entitlement to 1/7th based on the judgment-debtor’s inheritance argument.

2. Whether the executing court’s handling of the amended objections, including its failure to frame issues, warranted revisional interference.

Under Order 21 Rules 11 and 35 CPC, the executing court may decide questions relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree, but ordinarily must execute the decree according to its terms and cannot go behind or modify it (*Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman*, (1970) 1 SCC 670; *Deepa Bhargava v. Mahesh Bhargava*, (2009) 2 SCC 294).

Where a decree is ambiguous, the executing court may construe it by reference to the judgment and, if necessary, the pleadings (*Sanwarlal Agrawal v. Ashok Kumar Kothari*, (2023) 7 SCC 307).

An exception applies where the decree is a nullity for want of the court’s inherent jurisdiction; that objection may be raised in execution (*Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash*, (1977) 2 SCC 662).

An executing court need not frame issues as in a suit, but must decide disputes judicially.

The decree expressly declared the decree-holders entitled to a 1/6th share and granted joint possession; it was affirmed on appeal and was not shown to be a nullity.

The dispute over the widow’s inheritance could not be used in execution to alter that final determination.

Because the decree was clear, the rule permitting construction of an ambiguous decree did not assist the judgment-debtor.

The executing court considered the amended objection concerning the share and gave reasons for rejecting it.

Although it did not frame issues, it decided the dispute judicially by applying the decree’s express terms; no material irregularity or illegality justified revision.

Finding no illegality or material irregularity in the execution order, it dismissed the revision petition without costs and disposed of any pending applications.