1.    

This judgment from the Patna High Court (C.Misc. No.562 of
2018) handles a property execution dispute where a judgment-debtor attempted to
halt the execution of a decree by claiming it was nullity due to deaths of
certain defendants during the original trial. The case provides interesting
insights into execution proceedings and the limited grounds on which a decree
can be challenged at the execution stage.

Background

The petitioner Abdul Badud, one of many judgment-debtors,
sought to quash an order passed by the Sub Judge-8, Vaishali at Hajipur that
had rejected his application to dismiss Execution Case No. 4 of 2017.

The original dispute stemmed from Title Suit No. 162 of
1998, filed by respondent Abdul Quayum (decree-holder) seeking declaration of
title and possession over approximately 3.43 acres of land. This suit was
decreed on February 28, 2017, directing defendants to hand over vacant
possession within 60 days.

The petitioner and other defendants filed Title Appeal No.
33 of 2017, which remains pending. Meanwhile, the decree-holder initiated
execution proceedings through Execution Case No. 4 of 2017.

The Petitioner’s Claims

The petitioner discovered that five defendants (Rasulan
Nessa, Johara Khatoon, Chanda Devi, Ali Hussain, and Ram Pukari Devi) had
allegedly died during the pendency of the original suit without their legal
heirs being substituted. On December 15, 2017, he filed an application before
the executing court with death certificates, arguing that:

1. The
   decree was a nullity as it was passed against dead persons
2. The
   execution case should be dismissed
3. No
   proper miscellaneous case was instituted to address his objections

The Court’s Analysis

Justice Arun Kumar Jha rejected the petition on several
grounds:

Procedural Objection Regarding Miscellaneous Case

The court noted that the petitioner’s application didn’t
cite any legal provisions or specifically request formation of a miscellaneous
case. Rule 459 of Civil Court Rules provides for instituting a miscellaneous
case when applications are filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, but this wasn’t expressly invoked. Furthermore, when there are no
disputed facts requiring evidence or elaborate hearings, a miscellaneous case
isn’t mandatory.

On the Decree Being a Nullity

The judgment clarifies three situations where a decree can
become a nullity:

1. When
   the court lacks inherent jurisdiction
2. When
   the decree is passed against a dead person
3. When
   the decree violates a law or becomes inexecutable due to subsequent
   legislation

However, even if some defendants died during trial, the
decree wouldn’t become entirely void if:

• The
  right to sue survives against other defendants
• The
  estates of deceased defendants were represented by their legal heirs who
  were already on record

The court found that the heirs of the allegedly deceased
defendants were already parties to the suit, making the petitioner’s objection
untenable.

The Petitioner’s Contradictory Conduct

Justice Jha highlighted a serious contradiction in the
petitioner’s behavior: While claiming his mother Rasulan Nessa died on January
25, 2010, he had included her as a party in the Title Appeal filed on April 24,
2017. Furthermore:

1. Appeal
   notices were reportedly served on Johara Khatoon and Chanda Devi
   (allegedly deceased) who refused to receive them
2. The
   notice for Rasulan Nessa was received by the petitioner himself
3. The
   petitioner never informed the trial court about his mother’s death despite
   being her son

This conduct led the court to doubt the authenticity of the
death certificates and question whether the petitioner approached the court
with “clean hands.”

Legal Principle: Executing Court’s Jurisdiction

The judgment reaffirms the well-established principle that
an executing court cannot go behind the decree or sit in appeal over it. It
must take the decree according to its tenor and cannot entertain objections
that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts.

Citing Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman (AIR
1970 SC 1475), the court emphasized that until a decree is set aside through
appropriate appellate proceedings, it remains binding between parties even if
erroneous.

Only in limited cases where a decree is passed by a court
lacking inherent jurisdiction, or is a complete nullity on the face of the
record, can execution be resisted. An erroneous decree cannot be equated with a
nullity.

Alternative Remedy Available

The court noted that since the petitioner had already filed
a Title Appeal challenging the original decree, he had an appropriate forum to
raise all these issues rather than in execution proceedings.

Key Legal Principles From the Judgment

1. Limited
   Scope of Objections in Execution: An executing court cannot examine
   the correctness of a decree but must execute it according to its terms.
2. Nullity
   of Decree: A decree becomes a nullity only when passed without
   jurisdiction, against a dead person without legal representatives, or in
   violation of law.
3. Partial
   Nullity: Even if some defendants die during trial, the decree doesn’t
   become wholly void if the right to sue survives against other defendants.
4. Estate
   Representation: When legal heirs of deceased defendants are already
   parties to the suit, the decree is not a nullity.
5. Clean
   Hands Doctrine: A party approaching court must do so with clean hands
   and without contradictory conduct.
6. Procedural
   Requirements: The need for instituting a miscellaneous case depends on
   whether there are disputed facts requiring evidence or elaborate hearings.

Conclusion

Justice Jha dismissed the petition, affirming the order of
the executing court while leaving open the option for parties to pursue
appropriate legal remedies elsewhere. This judgment illustrates the court’s
careful approach to balancing procedural requirements with substantive justice,
particularly in execution proceedings where finality of decrees is paramount.

The case serves as an important reminder that execution
proceedings are not meant to relitigate decided matters or provide a backdoor
to challenge decrees that should properly be contested through appeals. It also
highlights how contradictory conduct by a petitioner can significantly
undermine their case, with the court carefully analyzing not just the legal
arguments but also the behavior of the parties seeking judicial intervention.

Read the full judgement Below;

NDQjNTYyIzIwMTgjMSNO-cvE7oauS2DQ=