BALAKRISHNAN Vs. KARUNAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are the revisions filed against the order in E.P. No. 84 of 2014 in O.S. No. 374 of 2013 dated 31-08-2015 of the Munsiff's Court, Chittoor.

(2.) CRP No. 620 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff/decree holder and the other one was filed by the defendant/judgment debtor. The decree passed in O.S. No. 374 of 2013 was put in execution by the plaintiff claiming to be the decree holder. It is an award passed in a Lok Adalath, accepting the compromise arrived at by the parties. The operative portion of the decree is extracted below for reference.

(3.) Going by the above said decree, it is clear that the terms and conditions agreed in between the parties and the decree passed do not disclose anything with respect to a chal which, according to the plaintiff, was in existence prior to the passing of the decree. Now, the dispute centers around the above said chal. The copy of plan prepared by the Commissioner who visited the property is also placed before me. Going by the plan, it is clear that the above said chal is situated and passing through somewhat middle of the property of the defendant and situated at a distance from the well. The existence of such a water channel and the right of parties, if any, over the above said channel either maintaining or using the same, was neither disclosed nor mentioned anywhere in the decree sought to be executed. The duty of the court is to execute the decree as such. It has to be executed in reference to the spirit of the decree. But the court, at any event, shall not exceed the four corners of the decree. Going by the decree sought to be executed (a copy of which was supplied by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in C.R.P No. 620 of 2015), it is clear that nothing was mentioned in the decree regarding either existence of such a chal or right of parties, if any, over the chal. The decree was passed only with respect to the well situated and the right of parties to take water by either installing electric motor or by other means and also to preserve the retaining wall of the well by cutting and removing trees attached to the wall around it. In short, the decree sought to be executed does not disclose any right or interest of the parties over any existing channel and does not contain anything to show the recognition of existence of such a chal. The fact that the chal is situated at a distance from the well and passing through the middle of the property of the defendant would acquire importance at this juncture. It cannot be implemented under the guise of the present decree. To that extent, the CRP preferred by the decree holder/plaintiff would fail.