Execution must remain confined to the property precisely demarcated in the decree.

The decree in O.S. No. 154 of 2012, which attained finality following the High Court’s judgment in A.S. No. 380 of 2018, declared the plaintiff owner of 127.50 sq. ft. shown in the Advocate Commissioner’s plan, Ex. C.4, and directed the defendant to remove any construction on that portion and hand it over

During execution, the judgment-debtor objected that the decree-holder was seeking delivery beyond the decreed area.

After an earlier execution order was challenged, the High Court directed a fresh inspection by the Advocate Commissioner.

The Commissioner thereafter filed a further report and sketch, and was examined and cross-examined by both sides; the Executing Court had not yet made further findings based on that evidence.

The judgment-debtor maintained that only 19.5 sq. ft. required demolition, while the decree-holders asserted that construction remained over the decreed 127.50 sq. ft.

Whether execution could proceed only in respect of the 127.50 sq. ft. identified in the decree and Ex. C.4, without extending to property beyond that area

Whether the Executing Court should consider the Advocate Commissioner’s reports and evidence, and ensure that only the decreed portion was identified and delivered

The revision was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

The judgment also records that the judgment-debtor had filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which the Executing Court dismissed.

The Court applied the principle that execution must conform to the decree: the decree-holders could seek delivery and removal of construction only within the 127.50 sq. ft. demarcated in Ex. C.4, and the Executing Court was to use the Commissioner’s material and appropriate survey assistance to identify that area.

No precedent is cited.

The decree conclusively specified the area to be delivered and incorporated Ex. C.4 as part of the decree.

The Court noted that the property’s identity was not in dispute and that two Commissioner’s reports had been prepared with the Surveyor’s assistance, but the later report and the Commissioner’s evidence still required consideration by the Executing Court.

It therefore rejected neither party’s factual position on the extent of remaining construction; instead, it directed execution to remain confined to the decreed 127.50 sq. ft., with the Bailiff permitted to obtain the Taluk Surveyor’s assistance to identify it.

The Executing Court must consider the Commissioner’s report and evidence, ensure that execution concerns only the 127.50 sq. ft. shown in Ex. C.4, and arrange for any construction found on that portion to be removed voluntarily or through court process, with the Bailiff and, if necessary, the Taluk Surveyor.

The exercise was to be completed within four weeks of receipt of the order; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.