DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER Vs. HIRA BORDOLOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.3.1991 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, in Title Execution Case No. 1 of 1990, whereby the concerned forest officials were ordered to deliver the elephant and the two calves to the decree holder.

(2.) The facts of the case are:- In the year 1971 the Forest Department seized a Bonghorochia elephant from Kadum Reserve Forest. After such seizure, Maniram Saikia and Bethaam Kalita claimed the ownership of the said elephant. Because of such dispute a Title Suit (Title Suit No. 14/79) was filed by the Opposite party herein, against Maniram and Thagiram Kalita in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Lakhimpur. Another Title suit (T.S. No. 15/79) was also filed by Maniram Saikia, against the Opposite party and Thagiram Kalita. In both the suits the State Government was one of the defendants. Both the suits were disposed of by a common judgment. The Title Suit No. 15/79 was dismissed and the Title Suit No. 14/79 filed by the Opposite party, Hira Bordoloi was decreed. Against the said judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred in the Court of District Judge, Lakhimpur (T.A. No. 1/82) by Maniram Saikia and this appeal was also dismissed by the District Judge, Lakhimpur. Maniram Saikia, preferred a second appeal before this Court (Second Appeal No. 120/83). This appeal was also dismissed on 27.6.1989. Thus, the decree passed in the said Title Suit No. 14/79 became final and the decree-holder was entitled to execute the decree. The decree-holder filed an Execution case (Title Execution Case No. 1/90) in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur. In the said Execution Case, the Forest Authority filed a petition praying for a direction to the decree-holder to pay Rs. 1,77,789.87 towards the cost of maintenance of the elephant. The prayer for maintenance was, however, rejected by the executing Court. Against this order, the Forest Department filed a revision petition (Civil Revision No. 315/89) in this Court. This revision petition was also dismissed with a direction to deliver the elephants in question to the Opposite Party, Hira Bordoloi. Thereafter, the matter of execution of the decree was taken up by the executing court, i.e. the Assistant District Judge. The Assistant District Judge by order dated 11.3.1991 directed the judgment-debtor to deliver possession of the elephant and its two calves which were born during the period of litigation, to the decree-holder. Against this order, the petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) The petitioner's contention is that as per decree, the decree-holder has to pay the petitioner the maintenance cost of the elephants which was defrayed from 1971 till now, amounting to Rs. 1,77,789.87, and before paying the said amount to the department, the Judgment debtor may be asked not to deliver the elephants to the decree-holder. The Opposite party however, challenged the contention of the petitioner.