PRAMILA DEBBARMA Vs. GITASREE DEB BARMA CHAKROBORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, has been directed against the order dated 11.6.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.Misc.(Exe) 79 of 1997 arising out of Title Execution Case No. 1 of 1997 rejecting the petition of the petitioners under Section 47 of the Code.

(2.) Smti. Gitasree Debbarma (Chakraborty) instituted Title Suit No. 43 of 1981 against Sri Nripendra Debbarma, husband of the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Pramila Debbara for declaration of title and recovery of khas possession and also for permanent injunction in respect of the land described in the schedule to the plaint. The decree passed in the aforesaids it was eventually confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 4 of 1988 and also by this High Court in Second Appeal No. 11 of 1989. The execution of the decree was resisted by the petitioner by filing a petition under Section 47 of the code on the ground that during the pendency of the Second Appeal, Nripendra Debbarma died and although the petitioners as well as proforma respondent No. 2 were substitued as his legal heirs, other heirs of Nripendra Debbarma who have been impleaded as proforma respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 in this revision petition, were not substituted. It has further been submitted that one of the daughters, nemely, Smt. Chandra Prava Debbarma, is of unsound mind and no step was taken by the decree holder to appoint a guardian adlitem (or natural guardian) to defend her interest. An objection was also raised on the ground that the boundary of the decreetal land is not correct and definite and the area covered by the decree is less than the area in possession of the judgment debtors.

(3.) After hearing both the parties, and on examination of the relevant documents, the Executing Court vide impugned order dated 11.6.98 rejected the petition holding, inter alia, that the Executing Court cannot look into the questions raised by the judgment- debtors who are otherwise estopped from agitating the question in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Code.