Saraswati Devi vs Santosh Singh

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal Nos…….……. of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.2817-2818 of 2020)

SARASWATI DEVI & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

SANTOSH SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeals arise from an order of the High Court,

dismissing a writ petition and from the dismissal of the

review petition too. We cannot but, at the outset, indicate

that the High Court has misconstrued the entire case. The

writ petition was from an order in a revision affirming the

rejection of an Execution Petition1. The EP was rejected

on the ground that in an earlier EP, there was a satisfaction Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi Date: 2025.05.16 15:54:31 IST Reason: 1 hereinafter, EP

Page 1 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020 recorded and hence, the principle of res judicata applies

squarely. The decree-holder had filed a writ petition. The

High Court found that the successive objections filed in

the EP were not maintainable on the principle of res

judicata and dismissed the writ petition and the review

filed too was dismissed. When the writ petition was filed

against the dismissal of an EP filed by the decree holder,

the High Court found the objection filed by the judgment

debtor to be not sustainable and dismissed the writ

petition. We would have normally sent back the matter for

consideration by the High Court but considering the long

pendency of the matter, we are inclined to dispose of the

appeals on merits.

3. Looking at the orders of the Courts below which are

part of the record, the predecessor-in-interest of the

appellants filed Civil Suit No.44 of 1988 against the

respondents herein which was decreed as per Annexure

P-1. The plaintiffs were granted a permanent prohibitory

injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession of

agricultural field No.4810-4811 situated in Village

Page 2 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020 Kharkhari, Tehsil and District Champawat. The

supplementary sale deed dated 22.08.1998, issued in

favour of the father of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the

husband of defendant No.3 stood cancelled. The EP was

filed by the plaintiffs presumably for obstruction caused,

the first of which was closed as Annexure P-4, when both

the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor were not

present. The judgment-debtor had undertaken in writing

before the Court that they were not causing any

obstruction or interference and the Court assumed that

since the decree-holder was absent, there was full

satisfaction, which was recorded. A further EP is said to

have been filed which was not pressed.

4. The order which gave rise to the instant proceedings

was in the third execution proceedings initiated by the

legal heirs of the plaintiffs who are the appellants herein.

The appellants herein as decree-holders filed EP No.2 of

2012 to which objection was filed under Section 47 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 19082, which is at Annexure P-6.

2 the CPC Page 3 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020 The objection was that the defendants were asserting title

based on the sale deed dated 29.09.1984 and what was

cancelled was only a supplemental deed of 1998. We have

to immediately notice that the defendants, despite notice

having been issued, did not appear in the earlier

proceedings nor did they raise such a contention before

the Court. It was also the submission of the defendants in

the objection filed that they have filed an application

before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division to set aside

the decree dated 19.07.2000. The Executing Court

considered the rival contentions and found that since the

earlier EP was disposed off on full satisfaction, there is no

scope for a further EP. This was affirmed as per Annexure

P-7 order by the revisional Court in Annexure P-8 which

was challenged before the High Court.

5. The High Court clearly misconstrued the facts and

misunderstood the orders impugned in the writ petition,

and the writ petition filed by the decree holder against the

dismissal of his EP was dismissed finding the objection of

the judgment holder to be unsustainable.

Page 4 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020

6. The decree was one of permanent prohibitory

injunction from interference to the peaceful possession of

the scheduled property. A satisfaction recorded in one EP

would not result in the dismissal of a further EP filed on the

ground of a subsequent interference caused.

7. It is also to be noticed that Article 136 of the Schedule to

the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for limitation, for

execution of any decree other than a decree granting a

mandatory injunction or the order of any Civil Court.

While 12 years is provided as the period of limitation the

proviso specifically provides that there would be no

limitation to enforce or execute a decree granting

perpetual injunction. When a permanent injunction is

granted it operates perpetually against the judgment

debtors, their assignees and successors and it could be

enforced at any time, breach is occasioned. The decree-

holder; their assignees and successors, has a perpetual

right in personam against the decree holders their

assignees and successors.

Page 5 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020

8. We find the order of the High Court to be flawed, and

the order of the executing Court as affirmed by the

revisional Court also to be bad and we set aside the

orders. The EP shall stand restored. Our observations

regarding the claim raised under Section 47 of the CPC is

only prima facie and it shall not govern the consideration

of such objection by the executing Court. The judgment-

debtor will also be entitled to produce before the

executing Court the result of the alleged proceedings

initiated for cancellation of the decree. With the above

observation, we remit the case back to the Court of Civil

Judge, Senior Division, Champaran wherein E.P. No.2 of

2012 would stand restored. The matter shall be

considered afresh in the light of the findings hereinabove,

except those regarding the sustainability of the decree

and the contention raised regarding the cancellation

sought before the same Court; which shall fall for

consideration by the Executing Court.

Page 6 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020

9. The appeals are allowed with the above observations

and reservations.

10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed

of.

...……….……………………. J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 16, 2025.

Page 7 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) Nos. 2817-2818 of 2020