AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Abhijit D. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Applicant.
By the present Revision Application filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (“C.P.C.”), the Applicants assail the Order dated 19th June 2026, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malshiras (“Executing Court”), on Exh-60 in R.D. No. 51 of 2018 (“impugned order”).
The Applicants are the Judgment Debtors-Defendants and the Respondents are the Decree Holders-Plaintiffs.
The material facts relevant to the adjudication of this Revision Application are as follows :
a. The Regular Civil Suit No. 2789 of 1999, filed by the Respondents, was decreed by the Trial Court on 22nd January 2018 in the following terms:
“1)Suit is decreed with costs.
2)Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff of suit land more particularly mentioned in plaint para 1-B and 1-C, within three months from the date of this order and defendant Nos. 4 to 8 join them for conveyance deed, subject to securing permission from competent authority, if needed.
3)Plaintiff shall bear the costs of execution of sale deed.
4)Plaintiff shall deposit remaining amount Rs. 1000/-in respect of transaction of defendant No.1 in the court within three months from this order or at earliest.
5)If defendants failed to comply the order, then plaintiff is at liberty to get execute the sale deed through court at the expenses of plaintiff.
6)Defendant No.1 is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited in the court, if any, after completion of execution of sale deed.
7)Defendants are directed to hand over the possession of suit land more particularly mentioned in, plaint para 1-B and 1-C to the plaintiff after execution of sale deed.
8)Decree be drawn up accordingly.”
b. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 22nd January 2018 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 2789 of 1999, the Applicants filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2018 before the Ad hoc District Judge-1, Malshiras, District Solapur (“Appellate Court”).
c. Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2018 was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 10th April 2023.
d. Dissatisfied with the dismissal of the Regular Civil Suit No. 2789 of 1999, the Applicants filed Second Appeal No. 505 of 2023 before this Court. This Court rejected Second Appeal No. 505 of 2023 on 15th September 2023.
e. Respondents initiated Execution proceedings R.D. No. 51 of 2018 before the Executing Court.
f. Respondents filed the draft Sale Deeds (Exh.-57 & 58) before the Executing Court under Order XXI, Rule 34 of the CPC. The Applicant objected to the draft Sale Deeds by filing Objections dated 14th October 2025 (Exh-60 in R.D. No. 51 of 2018).
g. By the impugned order, the Executing Court rejected the Objections (Exh-60) filed by the Applicants, consequently approved the draft Sale Deeds (Exh-57 & 58).
Mr. Abhijit D. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Applicants, has assailed the impugned order on two grounds: First, that there is misdescription of the property in the draft Sale Deeds (Exh-57 & 58). To clarify, he submits that the property described in the draft Sale Deeds (Exh-57 & 58) differs from the description of the property in the plaint; and Second, by referring to clause 2 of the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 2789 of 1999, he submits that the draft Sale Deeds (Exh-57 & 58) could not have been approved without securing permission from the Competent Authority for execution of the sale-deed.
Mr. Abhijit D. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Applicants, submits that both these objections go to the root of the matter and therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside.
Perused records.
The core of the contention of Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Applicants, appears to be the misdescription of the property to be conveyed to the Respondents under the decree.
The Judgment and Decree dated 22nd January 2018, passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 2789 of 1999, is upheld in Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2018 and confirmed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 505 of 2023, thereby giving it finality.
In paragraph No. 13 of the impugned order, the Execution Court has arrived at the following conclusions:
“13.The Judgment Debtors have further contended that the draft sale deeds contains incorrect description of property. This contention also deserves rejection. The Hon'ble High Court in paragraph 5 of its judgment in Second Appeal No.505/2023 has categorically held that the suit property was specifically described in the agreements and that the contention regarding incorrect description was unacceptable. Such finding has attained finality and is binding upon this Court. The changes in Gat numbers and subdivisions reflected in the draft sale deeds are shown to be consequential changes arising out of subsequent revenue entries and subdivision of original Gat numbers. The identity of the property remains traceable to the decree and original agreements. Therefore, the objection regarding misdescription has no substance.”
(“emphasis supplied”)
Perusal of the memo of Revision Application does not indicate any specific challenge to these findings of the Executing Court in paragraph 13 of the impugned order.
Mr. Abhijit D. Kulkarni learned Advocate for the Applicants refers to Ground No. 17 raised in the memo of the Revision Application and submits that the challenge to these findings lies therein. As Mr. Abhijit D. Kulkarni has relied on Ground No. 17, the same is reproduced herein:-
“17.Non-Application of Mind to Property Description: The Applicants specifically pleaded discrepancy between the decree description and the draft conveyance. The issue was not merely factual but related to identity of the property proposed to be conveyed. Approval of a conveyance containing an inaccurate description may create future title disputes. The Executing Court treated the issue as concluded solely because the High Court had upheld the decree. The Court failed to independently compare the draft deed with the decree. Consequently, the order suffers from non-application of mind.”
I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Abhijit D. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Applicants. The core of ground No. 17 appears to be the identity of the property to be conveyed, although it is couched as misdescription. The Executing Court, in paragraph No. 13 of the impugned order, concludes that, although changes may arise from subsequent revenue entries and subdivision of the original Gat numbers, the identity of the property remains traceable to the decree and the original agreements.
It would be apposite to note the observations of this Court in paragraphs 5 and 11 of the Order dated 15th September 2023 in Second Appeal No. 505 of 2023, which are as follows:
“5] Initially, it has been argued that description of the suit property is incorrect. However, record indicates that no such plea was raised by the defendants in the Trial Court and thus no issue to that effect was framed. Perusal of both registered agreements to sell indicates that suit property has been specifically described and the performance is to be granted on that basis, therefore issue of incorrect description is unacceptable. Though in Trial Court, nature of document has been challenged, however no arguments have been advanced to that effect. Moreover, both the even dated agreements are registered documents of which execution is admitted. Therefore concurrent finding of fact holding that it was a transaction of agreement to sell, calls for no interference.
11] Considering rival submissions, it reveals that defendants fought tooth to nail to save land from specific performance. Attempts were made to avoid performance by obtaining collusive partition decree as well as by alienating suit property during pendency of suit. In the scenario, it is evident that both the Courts have properly considered all the aspects and thus no substantial question of law emerges for adjudication. In view of above, appeal stands dismissed. Pending Civil Application is disposed of.”
The contentions urged by Mr. Abhijit D. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Applicants, give the impression that the Applicants are attempting to re-agitate an issue that has attained finality.
Regarding the second contention of Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Applicants, that the drafts of the Sale Deeds (Exh-57 & 58) could not have been approved without obtaining permission from the Competent Authority for execution of the sale deed, neither the Objections (Exh-60) nor the memo of Revision Application indicates that any Authority has raised any objection on the ground that the execution of the sale deed requires any permission. In this context, the contention of Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni is liable to be rejected. Hence, rejected.
However, it is clarified that if any permission in terms of law is required for registration of the sale deeds and the Competent Authority raises such an objection, then the decree dated 22nd January 2018 in Regular Civil Suit No. 2789 of 1999 provides an answer to that. The Trial Court has specifically observed that :- “Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff of suit land more particularly mentioned in plaint para 1-B and 1-C, within three months from the date of this order and defendant Nos. 4 to 8 join them for conveyance deed, subject to securing permission from competent authority, if needed”.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Griesheim GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases (P) Ltd.1 has observed that in this country, it is easier to get a decree, but difficult to execute it. The case at hand would fall within the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Griesheim GmbH (supra).
No case for interference in the Revisional jurisdiction is made out. In view of the above, this Revision Application is without merit and is dismissed.
No orders as to costs.
Footnotes
- 1.(2022) 11 SCC 549