# Ghanshyam & Ors v. Tulsi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1408
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-13
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 10979 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ghanshyam-ors-v-tulsi-ors-54846
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Gautam

Issue (s) for Consideration
(i) Whether in case of a joint decree, when
one of the decree holders files an execution
application, then it should be stated in the
execution application that the execution is being
filed for the benefit of all the decree holders.
(ii) Whether the decree is in executable for
the reason that in the map submitted by
Ameen, which has been made part of the
decree, points and द have not been
mentioned, is also not sustainable for the
reason that the decree always is made in
accordance with the judgment which proceeds
the decree

Head Notes
The Constitution of India,1950-Article
227; The Code of Civil Procedure,1908Section 47, Order XXI Rule 15- Under the
provisions of Rule 15, any one of the
several joint decree-holders may apply for
the execution of the whole decree for the
benefit of all the decree-holders, including
the
survivors
and
the
legal
representatives of a deceased decreeholder, if any. Rule 11 of Order XXI of the
Code has enumerated the details which
have got to be stated in the petition for
execution, and rules 12, 13 and 14 of
Order XXI have also laid down the details
to be filled in as regards the description of
the property to be proceeded against in
execution of a decree. Rule 15 of Order
XXI is an enabling one. Ordinarily all the
persons shown in the decree as decreeholders would be entitled to execute the
decree. But rule 15 has made it possible
for one of the decree-holders to execute
the whole decree, unless the decree itself
contains any provisions to the contrary.
The provisions of rule 15 apply to all cases
where a decree has been passed in favour
of more persons than one as joint decreeholders. If the decree itself indicates that,
though a number of persons figure as
decree-holders, their interests are clearly
defined as to shares or as to amounts out
of the, total amount decreed, the decree
may not be executed by any one of them
as regards the whole, because it may be
several
decrees
contained
in
one
document. If there are several decreeholders, who have obtained a joint decree,
they may be members of a joint Hindu
Mitakshara
family
or
they
may
be
complete strangers to each other. In the
latter case, it will be incumbent upon any
one of the decree-holders clearly to state
in the execution petition that he is
executing the decree in its entirety for the
benefit of all the other decree-holders or
for the benefit of the survivors and legal
representatives of such of them as have
died since after the passing of the decree-
In the operative portion of the judgment,
the map submitted by Ameen has been
made part of the decree wherein points
and द have not been mentioned in the map
will not make any difference as the decree
as well as judgment is very clear as it
specifically
directs
the
petitioner
to
remove his construction existing at points
 and द which has been clearly described
in the plaint itself.

Held
(i) There is no substance in the objection taken
by the judgment debtors with regard to non
compliance of Rule 15 of Order XXI of C.P.C.
(ii) The contention of the petitioners that the
property is not unidentifiable and therefore,
decree cannot be executed for the reason that
in the Ameen Map, which has been made part
of the decree points and द has not been
shown, is unsustainable. (Para 12, 18, 20 &
23) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Shaikh Mohammad Anas and another decree
holders Vs. Bhupendra Prasad Shukul and
others; AIR 1938 Patna 457; Panna Lal
Agarwala v. Kanhaiya Lal Jain; (AIR 1974 Pat
284); Chimna vs Chunnilal; 1955 Rajasthan Law
Weekly page 460; Sahdeo Prasad Verma and
another Vs. Dr. Raja Ram and others; 1984 SCC
Online All 64; Jagdeo Singh and another Vs.
1410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Babu Lal Shah; 1941 SCC Online Pat 298; Rani
Veerammani Vs Rajaveerabasava Chikka Royal
and 3 Others; 1938 SCC Online Mad 320;
Rampalli Ramachandrudu Vs. Bakraj Gulab
Chand Firm by Gulabchand and others; 1957
SCC Online AP 319; Pratibha Sin

## Text

1408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
memorandum of appeal before the Rent
Tribunal shall be treated to be a suit
between the landlord and tenant and court
fees shall be charged in accordance with
Section 7(xi-b) of Act, 1870, but for other
applications as mentioned in Section 39(3)
of Act No. 16 of 2021, court fees shall be
charged as in the matter of interlocutory
application filed before the civil court i.e.
Schedule-II Item No. 1-b of the Act, 1870.
Further, in light of Section 42 of Act No.
16 of 2021, in case of inconsistency,
provisions of Act No. 16 of 2021 would
prevail.

18. So far as Section 11 of Act, 1870 is
concerned, it shall also not be applicable in light
of Section 39 of Act No. 16 of 2021 read with
Section 42 of Act No. 16 of 2021 .

19. Therefore, in the light of law
discussed herein-above, this Court is of the firm
view that court fees in terms of Section 39(2) of
Act No. 16 of 2021 shall only be applicable for
the applications filed for recovery of possession
i.e. proviso of Sections 4(3), 20(2) and 27 of
Act No. 16 of 2021 or any other applications for
recovery of possession. So far as other
applications, which have been filed under
Sections 10, 6(4), 6(5), 14(2), 20(2) and 26(3)
of Act No. 16 of 2021 or any other applications
identical to same, court fee shall be charged in
accordance with Section 39(3) of Act No. 16 of
2021. In case of inconsistency, in the light of
Section 42 of Act No. 16 of 2021, provisions of
Act No. 16 of 2021 shall prevail over the
matter. To make it clear, provision of Act, 1870
shall only be applicable to the extent not
inconsistant to Act No. 16 of 2021.

20. Therefore, under such facts,
calculation of court fees calculated by
respondent no. 2- A.D.M./Rent Authority, Agra
vide orders dated 28.05.2024 and 29.05.2024 is
incorrect. Matter is remitted back to respondent
no. 2- A.D.M./Rent Authority, Agra to recalculate the court fees in light of Section 39(3)
of Act No. 16 of 2021 read with Schedule-II
Item No. 1-b of the Act, 1870, maximum
within two weeks from the date of production
of certified copy of this order. Earlier orders
dated 28.05.2024 and 29.05.2024 shall abide by
the new orders passed by Rent Authority.

21. He shall further proceed to decide
the execution case at the earliest not more than
30 days as provided in Section 36(3) of Act No.
16 of 2021.

22. So far as another argument of
counsel for petitioner about the disposal of case
in a time bound manner in concerned,
needless to say that once there is provision in
Act No. 16 of 2021 for disposal of different
applications, appeal and execution cases,
Rent Authority or Rent Tribunal, as the case
may be, is bound to decide the case strictly in
accordance with Act No. 16 of 2021.
Therefore, Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal
are directed to decide not only the cases of
petitioner, but other cases pending before
them strictly in a time limit prescribed by the
provisions of Act No. 16 of 2021.

23. With the aforesaid observations,
petition is allowed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1408
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 10979 of
2023

Ghanshyam & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Tulsi & Ors. ...Respondents
11 All. Ghanshyam & Ors. Vs. Tulsi & Ors.
1409
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ashok Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Gautam

Issue (s) for Consideration
(i) Whether in case of a joint decree, when
one of the decree holders files an execution
application, then it should be stated in the
execution application that the execution is being
filed for the benefit of all the decree holders.
(ii) Whether the decree is in executable for
the reason that in the map submitted by
Ameen, which has been made part of the
decree, points and द have not been
mentioned, is also not sustainable for the
reason that the decree always is made in
accordance with the judgment which proceeds
the decree

Head Notes
The Constitution of India,1950-Article
227; The Code of Civil Procedure,1908Section 47, Order XXI Rule 15- Under the
provisions of Rule 15, any one of the
several joint decree-holders may apply for
the execution of the whole decree for the
benefit of all the decree-holders, including
the
survivors
and
the
legal
representatives of a deceased decreeholder, if any. Rule 11 of Order XXI of the
Code has enumerated the details which
have got to be stated in the petition for
execution, and rules 12, 13 and 14 of
Order XXI have also laid down the details
to be filled in as regards the description of
the property to be proceeded against in
execution of a decree. Rule 15 of Order
XXI is an enabling one. Ordinarily all the
persons shown in the decree as decreeholders would be entitled to execute the
decree. But rule 15 has made it possible
for one of the decree-holders to execute
the whole decree, unless the decree itself
contains any provisions to the contrary.
The provisions of rule 15 apply to all cases
where a decree has been passed in favour
of more persons than one as joint decreeholders. If the decree itself indicates that,
though a number of persons figure as
decree-holders, their interests are clearly
defined as to shares or as to amounts out
of the, total amount decreed, the decree
may not be executed by any one of them
as regards the whole, because it may be
several
decrees
contained
in
one
document. If there are several decreeholders, who have obtained a joint decree,
they may be members of a joint Hindu
Mitakshara
family
or
they
may
be
complete strangers to each other. In the
latter case, it will be incumbent upon any
one of the decree-holders clearly to state
in the execution petition that he is
executing the decree in its entirety for the
benefit of all the other decree-holders or
for the benefit of the survivors and legal
representatives of such of them as have
died since after the passing of the decree-
In the operative portion of the judgment,
the map submitted by Ameen has been
made part of the decree wherein points
and द have not been mentioned in the map
will not make any difference as the decree
as well as judgment is very clear as it
specifically
directs
the
petitioner
to
remove his construction existing at points
 and द which has been clearly described
in the plaint itself.

Held
(i) There is no substance in the objection taken
by the judgment debtors with regard to non
compliance of Rule 15 of Order XXI of C.P.C.
(ii) The contention of the petitioners that the
property is not unidentifiable and therefore,
decree cannot be executed for the reason that
in the Ameen Map, which has been made part
of the decree points and द has not been
shown, is unsustainable. (Para 12, 18, 20 &
23) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Shaikh Mohammad Anas and another decree
holders Vs. Bhupendra Prasad Shukul and
others; AIR 1938 Patna 457; Panna Lal
Agarwala v. Kanhaiya Lal Jain; (AIR 1974 Pat
284); Chimna vs Chunnilal; 1955 Rajasthan Law
Weekly page 460; Sahdeo Prasad Verma and
another Vs. Dr. Raja Ram and others; 1984 SCC
Online All 64; Jagdeo Singh and another Vs.
1410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Babu Lal Shah; 1941 SCC Online Pat 298; Rani
Veerammani Vs Rajaveerabasava Chikka Royal
and 3 Others; 1938 SCC Online Mad 320;
Rampalli Ramachandrudu Vs. Bakraj Gulab
Chand Firm by Gulabchand and others; 1957
SCC Online AP 319; Pratibha Singh and another
Vs. Shanti Devi Prasad and another; 2002 (8)
Supreme 553; Bhavan Vaja and others Vs.
Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang and another;
1973 (2) SCC 40;

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Code
of Civil Procedure,1908

List of Keywords
Order
XXI
Rule
15;Joint
decree-holders;
Execution Application; Section 47 CPC; Rules 11,
12, 13 and 14 of Order XXI; All decree-holders
would be entitled to execute the decree

Case Arising From

Order dated 27.10.2017 passed Additional Civil
Judge, Court No. 3, Gorakhpur rejecting the
objections filed by the judgment debtorpetitioners under Section 47 C.P.C. (registered
as Misc. Case No. 80 of 1980) in execution case
No. 158 of 1979 (Ghanshyam and others Vs.
Lorik and others) and order dated 06.09.2023
passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1,
Gorakhpur in Civil Revision No. 39 of 2021
rejecting the revision filed by the judgment
debtor-petitioners against the order dated
27.10.2017.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner : Ashok Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent : Gautam

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar
Nigam, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.K. Shukla, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners and
Sri Gautam, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. This petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 27.10.2017
passed Additional Civil Judge, Court No. 3,
Gorakhpur rejecting the objections filed by
the
judgment
debtor-petitioners
under
Section 47 C.P.C. (registered as Misc. Case
No. 80 of 1980) in execution case No. 158
of 1979 (Ghanshyam and others Vs. Lorik
and others) and order dated 06.09.2023
passed by Additional District Judge, Court
No. 1, Gorakhpur in Civil Revision No. 39
of 2021 rejecting the revision filed by the
judgment debtor-petitioners against the
order dated 27.10.2017.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
Original Suit No. 149 of 1964 was
instituted by the predecessor in interest of
the respondents, namely, Tulsi against
predecessor in interest of the petitioners,
namely, Ghanshyam, Mithai and one
Sanwary for the relief that defendants be
directed to remove their possession over
any dispute shown by letter स and द shown
with red colour situated at Mauja Sonbarsa,
Tappa Keotali, Pargana Haveli, DistrictGorkahpur and hand over possession to the
plaintiffs
after
demolishing
their
constructions shown by letter स and द.
During pendency of the suit, original
plaintiff Tulsi died and was substituted by
his son Hansraj. Hansraj also died during
pendency of the suit and was substituted by
Lorik son of Hansraj, Smt. Dulari and Smt.
Tapesari daughters of Tulsi. Suit No. 149
of 1964 was decreed after contest by
judgment and decree dated 25.05.1965
directing
the
defendants
to
remove
constructions shown at letter स and द
existing on the land in the suit and also to
deliver the possession over the land in suit
within thirty days. Ameen map 23-Ga was
made on the part of the decree. Civil
Appeal No. 320 of 1965 was filed by
Ghanshyam and other defendants in the suit
against the judgment and decree dated
25.05.1965 which was dismissed by
judgment and decree dated 03.03.1978 and
11 All. Ghanshyam & Ors. Vs. Tulsi & Ors.
1411
the decree became final. Lorik one of the
decree holders filed Execution Case No.
158 of 1979 for executing the decree dated
25.05.1965.
The
judgment
debtorpetitioners filed objection against the
execution application Paper No. 4 Ga
which was registered as Misc. Case No. 80
of 1980. During pendency of the execution
case, decree holders as well as judgment
debtors died and were substituted by their
heirs. Decree holders also filed objections
against the objection filed by the judgment
debtor-petitioners under Section 47 C.P.C.
The executing court by judgment and order
dated 27.10.2017 dismissed the objections
filed by the petitioners under Section 47
C.P.C. The order dated 27.10.2017 was
challenged in revision being Revision No.
39 of 2021 and the same was dismissed by
the revisional court by order dated
06.09.2023. Hence the present writ petition.

4. It has been submitted by counsel for
the petitioners that judgment and decree
dated 25.05.1965 was a joint decree in
favour of heirs of original plaintiff Tulsi.
Only Lorik, one of the decree holders filed
the execution petition without their being
any recital in the said petition that the
execution case is being filed for the benefit
of other decree holders and therefore, in
view of the provisions of Order XXI Rule
15 of C.P.C., the said petition was not
maintainable. In this regard, counsel for the
petitioners
relied
upon
judgment
of
Honble Patna High Court in case of
Shaikh Mohammad Anas and another
decree holders Vs. Bhupendra Prasad
Shukul and others; AIR 1938 Patna 457.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further
contended that the execution is being
sought for removing the constructions at
points स and द but in the map submitted by
Ameen, which has been made part of the
decree, points स and द are not shown and
therefore, decree is inexecutable as the land
is unidentifiable.

5.
Per
contra,
learned
counsel
appearing for the respondents submitted
that even though there is no recital in the
execution application that the decree is
being executed for benefit of all other
decree holders, unless, contrary intention
appears, it cannot be said that such an
application is not maintainable in view of
provisions of Rule 15 of Order XXI C.P.C.
It has been further contended by learned
counsel for the respondents that in the
plaint, it has been clearly stated by plaintiff
that the defendant has taken forcible
possession over points स and द. Learned
counsel for the respondents referred the
averments made in paragraph Nos. 9 and
11 of the plaint in this regard. It has also
been submitted that the relief claimed in the
plaint was for removal of constructions
made by the defendants over points स and
द and with a further relief to hand over the
possession of the same. It has also been
submitted that in the plaint map points स
and द have been clearly shown. While
decreeing the suit by judgment dated
25.05.1965, the trial court has directed the
defendants to remove their constructions at
points स and द existing on the land in suit
and also to deliver possession over the land
in suit within thirty days. Thus, there is no
question of land being unidentifiable.
Though, by the judgment dated 25.05.1965,
the trial court directed the Ameen Map
shall form part of the decree and even in
case, in the Ameen Map points स and द
have not been mentioned, will not be an
impediment for executing the decree. It has
been further submitted by counsel for the
respondents that the decree is of the year
1965 and is being obstructed by the
defendants by raising frivolous objections.
1412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6.
Before
considering
the
rival
submissions, it would be appropriate to
look into the provisions of Order XXI Rule
15 of C.P.C. and the same is quoted as
under:-

"15. Application for execution by
joint decree-holders.

(1) Where a decree has been
passed jointly in favour of more persons
than one, any one or more such persons
may, unless the decree imposes any
condition to the contrary, apply for the
execution of the whole decree for the
benefit of them all, or, where of them has
died, for the benefit of the survivors and the
legal representatives of the deceased.

(2)
Where
the
Court
sees
sufficient cause for allowing the decree to
be executed on an application made under
this rule, it shall make such order as it
deems necessary for protecting the interest
of the persons who have not joined in the
application."

7. So far as contention of learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
that
the
execution application filed for executing
the decree against the judgment debtorspetitioners is not in accordance with the
provisions of Order XXI Rule 15 of C.P.C.
In case of a joint decree, when one of the
decree
holders
files
an
execution
application, then it should be stated in the
execution application that the execution is
being filed for the benefit of all the decree
holders. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted it is an essential requirement of the
provision contained in Rule 15 of Order XXI
of
C.P.C.
and
the present
execution
application does not fulfill the requisite
condition of that provision. The requirement
of Rule 15 is that one of the decree holders,
who files execution application is entitled to
file the execution application only when it is
for the benefit of all the decree holders.

8. In case of Shaikh Mohammad Anas
(supra) it has been held where an application
for execution is alleged to have been made on
behalf of the applicant himself and also
another person having an interest in portion
of a decree, it is necessary, in order to comply
with the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 15 of
C.P.C., to state that the application is taken
on behalf of the applicant and for the benefit
and on behalf of all the other persons entitled
to execute the decree. Unless this is done, the
application cannot be treated to have been
made on behalf of both.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents
relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Patna High
Court in case of Panna Lal Agarwala v.
Kanhaiya Lal Jain; (AIR 1974 Pat 284). In
that case, it has been held that one of the
decree holders can apply for execution on
behalf of all and it is not incumbent for the
applicant to expressly state that he is applying
for all other decree holders. If it appears to
the court that the decree is being executed for
the benefit of all the decree holders, it may
allow the execution to proceed.

10. In case of Chimna vs Chunnilal;
1955 Rajasthan Law Weekly page 460.
Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court framed
following question in paragraph No. 9 of the
judgment, which is quoted as under:-

"9. In order to decide this
question, the following further points arise
for consideration:

(1) Whether in the case of jointdecree-holders, it is necessary that all of
them should apply for the execution of the
decree, or
11 All. Ghanshyam & Ors. Vs. Tulsi & Ors.
1413

(2) Whether it is permissible by
law for one or more out of several decreeholders to present an application for
execution.

(3) Whether in case all the
decree-holders apply, it is necessary that
all of them should sign the application.

(4) In case only one or some of
the decree-holders make an application
whether the rest would also be considered
necessary party if an appeal is filed?"

In
paragraph
No.
11,
the
questions were answered by the Hon'ble
Rajasthan High Court and the same is
quoted as under:-

"11. A bare perusal of this rule
would show that in the case of joint decreeholders, it is not necessary that all of them
should apply for the execution of the decree
unless the decree itself imposes such a
condition. This rule permits that one or
more of the decree-holders may apply for
the execution of the whole decree, but such
an application must be for the benefit of all
the decree-holders and if someone of the
decree-holder has died, it should be for the
benefit of the survivors and the legal
representatives of the deceased. This
clearly means that although one or more of
the decree-holders are permitted to take out
the execution of the whole decree, it is not for
their benefit alone but for the benefit of all
the
decree-holders
or
their
legal
representatives. Then sub-rule (2) provides
that if the court considers that there is
sufficient cause to allow execution of the
decree on the application of one or more of
the decree-holders, then it is incumbent on
that court to make such orders, as may be
proper in the circumstances of the case, for
protecting the interests of the persons who
have not joined in the application. The
answers to points Nos. 1 and 2 would,
therefore, be in the negative and in the
affirmative
respectively
subject
to
the
observations made above."

11. This Court in case of Sahdeo
Prasad Verma and another Vs. Dr. Raja
Ram and others; 1984 SCC Online All 64
in paragraph No. 11 has held as under:-

"11. As regards an application for
the execution of a decree passed in favour of
co-trustees the position would be governed
under the general provision contained and
under Order XXI, Rule 15 of the Code.
Accordingly, whereas in this case a decree
has been passed jointly in favour of more
persons than one, any one of such persons
may, unless the decree imposes any condition
to the contrary, apply for the execution of the
whole decree for the benefit of them all or for
the benefit of the surviving decree-holders
and the legal representatives of the deceased,
as the case may be. (SeePanna Lal
Agarwala v. Kanhaiya Lal Jain(AIR 1974
Pat 284); K.M. Rao v. N. Adenna (AIR 1949
Mad 654). The execution sought by one of the
decree-holders who is also a co-trustee is to
be regarded in the absence of any indication
to the contrary as being for the benefit of the
entire body of co-trustees and the application
is not, therefore, vitiated on this account. The
position may have been different in case one
of the co-trustees had proceeded, say, to
make transfer of the trust property without
joining the others such as was the case
inMan Mohan Das v. Janki Pd.(AIR 1945
PC 23);L.J. Iyer v. P. M. N. Iyer(AIR
1962 SC 633) relied on by the Court
below."

12. From reading of the provision of
Rule 15 and the case laws referred above, I
am of the view under the provisions of
1414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rule 15, any one of the several joint
decree-holders may apply for the execution
of the whole decree for the benefit of all the
decree-holders, including the survivors and
the legal representatives of a deceased
decree-holder, if any. Rule 11 of Order
XXI of the Code has enumerated the details
which have got to be stated in the petition
for execution, and rules 12, 13 and 14 of
Order XXI have also laid down the details
to be filled in as regards the description of
the property to be proceeded against in
execution of a decree. Rule 15 of Order
XXI is an enabling one. Ordinarily all the
persons shown in the decree as decreeholders would be entitled to execute the
decree. But rule 15 has made it possible for
one of the decree-holders to execute the
whole decree, unless the decree itself
contains any provisions to the contrary. The
provisions of rule 15 apply to all cases
where a decree has been passed in favour
of more persons than one as joint decreeholders. If the decree itself indicates that,
though a number of persons figure as
decree-holders, their interests are clearly
defined as to shares or as to amounts out of
the, total amount decreed, the decree may
not be executed by any one of them as
regards the whole, because it may be
several decrees contained in one document.
If there are several decree-holders, who
have obtained a joint decree, they may be
members of a joint Hindu Mitakshara
family or they may be complete strangers
to each other. In the latter case, it will be
incumbent upon any one of the decreeholders clearly to state in the execution
petition that he is executing the decree in
its entirety for the benefit of all the other
decree-holders or for the benefit of the
survivors and legal representatives of such
of them as have died since after the passing
of the decree. In the present case, decree
holders are heirs of deceased-plaintiff.

13. Rule 17 of Order XXI insists upon
the requirements of rules 11 to 14 being
complied with, and empowers the Court to
reject the application for execution, if upon
opportunity being given to the applicant,
the defects, if any, are not removed within
the time allowed. Rule 17 does not speak of
any particulars required by rule 15 to be
necessarily incorporated in the application
for execution. Hence in my opinion, if the
particulars required by rules 11 to 14 of
Order XXI of the Code have been
incorporated in the petition, it becomes an
application in accordance with law. The
provisions of rule 15 are meant to
safeguard the interests of the decreeholders as also to ensure that the judgmentdebtor, on making payment of the decretal
sum, gets a full and valid discharge. It is for
the Court, in each case, to satisfy itself that,
where the decree has been, on the face of it,
passed in favour of more than one person, it
is being executed for the benefit of all of
them. In order to do that, the Court has
been empowered to make such order as it
deems necessary for protecting the interests
of the persons who have not joined in the
application for execution. In my opinion, it
is not absolutely incumbent on the
executing decree-holder to state in so many
words in the execution petition itself that
the decree is being executed for the benefit
of all the decree-holders. If it appears to the
Court that the decree is, as a matter of fact,
being executed for the benefit of all the
decree-holders, it will allow the execution
to proceed, even though such a statement
does not find place in the application for
execution. Ordinarily, of course, such a
statement ought to find place in the
execution, petition itself, so that the matter
is placed beyond all controversy. But the
absence of such a statement from the
execution petition does not necessarily
entail the result that the application for
11 All. Ghanshyam & Ors. Vs. Tulsi & Ors.
1415
execution becomes contrary to law. On first
principles,
therefore,
and
on
an
examination of the relevant provisions of
the Code, it does not appear to me that the
application for execution in the present
case is not in accordance with law.
Certainly, it is for the Court to lay down
such conditions as would, ensure the
protection of the interests of such of the
decree-holders as have not joined in the
application for execution.

14. In case of Jagdeo Singh and
another Vs. Babu Lal Shah; 1941 SCC
Online Pat 298, Hon'ble Patna High Court
held that where one of the several decree
holders applies for execution and other
decree holders do not object to the
execution being granted to him, it is not for
the judgment debtor to say that sufficient
steps have not been taken to safeguard
interest of other decree holders.

15. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in
case
of
Rani
Veerammani
Vs
Rajaveerabasava Chikka Royal and 3
Others; 1938 SCC Online Mad 320 held
that the judgment debtor could only request
the court under Order XXI Rule 15 to see
that his interests were not in any way
jeopardised by payment to one out of four
decree-holders. Thus, in my view in case,
no objection is filed by the other decree
holders, the judgment debtor has no right to
object to the execution only on the ground
of non compliance of Rule 15 of Order
XXI. He can at the best request that his
interest may not be jeopardized in case the
decree is satisfied only with respect to one
of the joint decree holders.

16. It is also relevant to note that all
the cases discussed above were relating to
money decrees. Here in the present case,
the decree is for possession. The present
decree holders are the heirs of the original
plaintiff, their inter se rights regarding the
property are not to be considered and
decided in the execution petition and it is
only the decree for possession has to be
executed whether at the behest of one of
decree holder or by all decree holders, the
result will be the same. In case of money
decree, it is possible that other decree
holders may be entitled for different share
of money in accordance with the decree
and in case the decree is being executed
only by one of the decree holders and is
satisfied by the judgment debtor, it might
be possible that the interest of other decree
holders may be jeopardized for which he
may make a complain and the court
executing the decree is bound to safeguard
the interests of the joint decree holders as
well as of the judgment debtors in such a
case but not in the case at hand where the
decree is only for the possession of land.

17. In my view, I am supported by
Division Bench judgment of Hon'ble
Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of
Rampalli Ramachandrudu Vs. Bakraj
Gulab Chand Firm by Gulabchand and
others; 1957 SCC Online AP 319 in
paragraph nos. 17 to 19 is quoted as under:-

"17. It is then contended that only
one of the decree-holders applied for
execution of the decree without written
authority from others and, therefore, the
application was not one in accordance with
law. In support of this contention reliance
is placed upon Rule 147 of the Civil Rules
of Practice :

"Where an application is made by
one or more of several joint decreeholders, unless a written authority signed
by the other decree-holders for the
applicant to execute the decree and to
1416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
receive the money or property recovered, is
filed in Court, the Court shall give notice of
the order, if any, passed for the execution
of the decree, to all the decree-holders who
have not joined in the application; and may
also in its discretion give notices of any
application for payment out of Court or
delivery to the applicant, of any money or
property recovered in execution."

18. Order 21, Rule 15, Civil
Procedure Code, empowers one of the
decree-holders, unless the decree imposes
any condition to the contrary, to apply for
the execution of the whole decree for the
benefit of them all or, where any of them
has died, the benefit of the survivors, and
the legal representatives of the deceased.
Rule 2 enables the Court to make an order
as it deems necessary for protecting the
interests of the persons who have not joined
in the application.

19. What is left to the discretion
of the Court under Rule 2 is elucidated
under Rule 147, Civil Rules of Practice,
and a specific procedure is prescribed
thereunder for protecting the interests of
the other decree-holders. This rule is
conceived in the interests of joint decreeholders and to prevent fraud being effected
by one of them on others. The judgmentdebtor is not affected by the infringement of
the Rule and, therefore, he has no right to
question
the
maintainability
of
the
application on that ground. "

18. Thus, in my view, there is no
substance in the objection taken by the
judgment debtors with regard to non
compliance of Rule 15 of Order XXI of
C.P.C.

19. So far as other contention of
learned counsel for the petitioners that the
decree is inexecutable for the reason that in
the map submitted by Ameen, which has
been made part of the decree, points स and
द have not been mentioned, is also not
sustainable for the reason that the decree
always is made in accordance with the
judgment which proceeds the decree. In the
judgment, which is at page No. 49 of the
petition from which it is clear that by the
judgment dated 25.05.1965, the trial court
directed the defendants to remove their
construction shown at letters स and द
existing on the land in suit and also to
deliver possession over the land in suit. In
the decree which is annexed at page No. 68
of the petition, it has been mentioned that
defendants may remove their constructions
from the land described by letter स and द
and hand over possession to the plaintiff.
Decree as made is quoted as under:

दादरसी

व सदूर शडकी हुक्म इम्तदाई दवामी
प्रशतवादीगण को आदेि शकया जाये शक वे अन्दर
शमयाद मुकदमा अदालत वाद शमयाद अक्षर स
वो िप्पर शनजाई शनजाई अक्षर द अन्दर
शनम्नशलप्तखत शववाशदत भूशम व रोंग लाल वाका
मौजा सोनवर्ाष, तप्पा केवटली परगना हवेली,
शजला- गोरखपुर की जमीन वादीगण व रोंगलाल
मजकूर से हटा लेवे और कब्जा वादीगण को
जमीन तहती पर दे देवे वसूरत कसूर इनके
तामीरात शनजाई अक्षर स व द को जररये अमीन
अदालत हटवाकर कब्जा दखल वादीगण को
शदलवा शदया जाये।

"वादी के शलए श्री लाल बहादूर शसोंह
एडवोकेट----अशभवक्ता

और प्रशतवादी के शलए श्री अवध
शबहारी लाल एडवोकेट अशभवक्ता--- की
11 All. Ghanshyam & Ors. Vs. Tulsi & Ors.
1417
उपप्तस्थत में एवों वाद के वाद के समक्ष अोंशतम
शनपटारे के शलए पेि होने पर यह आशदष्ट और
वादआिा शकया जाता है शकः- मुकदमा हाजा
बावत हुक्म इम्तदाई दवामी मय खचाष मुकदमा
प्तखलाफ प्रशतवादीगण शडकी प्रशतवादीगण को
शहदायत की जाती है शक वे जमीन शनजाई के
हफष (स) व (द) से तामीरात हटा लेवे और कब्जा
दखल वादीगण को तारीख शडकी से तीस शदन
के अन्दर दे देवे।

नक्शा मुतषया अमीन कागज नों०- 23ग
शडकी का भाग है

मेरे हस्ताक्षर और न्यायालय की मुद्रा
के सशहत आज शदनाक 25.05.1965 ई० में दी
गई।

हस्ताक्षर अपठनीय

चतुथष अशतररक्त मुशसोंफ जनपद

गोरखपुर।"

20. Though, in the operative portion of
the judgment, the map submitted by Ameen
has been made part of the decree wherein
points स and द have not been mentioned in
the map will not make any difference as the
decree as well as judgment is very clear as
it specifically directs the petitioner to
remove his construction existing at points
स and द which has been clearly described
in the plaint itself.

21.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents relief upon judgment of the
Supreme Court in case of Pratibha Singh
and another Vs. Shanti Devi Prasad and
another; 2002 (8) Supreme 553 wherein
Apex Court held that the exact description
of property may be ascertained by the
executing court as a question relating to
execution, discharge or satisfaction of
decree within the meaning of Section 47
CPC. A decree of a competent Court
should not, as far as practicable, be allowed
to be defeated on account of an accidental
slip or omission. (Paragraph No. 17)

22.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents also relied upon judgment in
case of Bhavan Vaja and others Vs.
Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang and
another; 1973 (2) SCC 40, the Supreme
Court held that it is true that an executing
court cannot go behind the decree under
execution. But that does not mean that it
has no duty to find out the true effect of
that decree. For construing a decree it can
and in appropriate cases, it ought to take
into consideration the pleadings as well as
the proceedings leading up to the decree. In
order to find out the meaning of the words
employed in a decree the Court, often has
to ascertain the circumstances under which
those words came to be used. That is the
plain duty of the execution Court and if that
Court fails to discharge that duty it has
plainly failed to exercise the jurisdiction
vested in it. The jurisdiction of the
executing court do not began and end with
merely looking at the decree as it was
finally drafted. (Paragraph No. 20)

23. Thus, in my view, the contention
of learned counsel for the petitioners that
the property is not unidentifiable and
therefore, decree cannot be executed for the
reason that in the Ameen Map, which has
been made part of the decree points स and
द has not been shown, is unsustainable.

24. In view of the discussions made
above, I am of the considered opinion that
the courts below have committed no
illegality in rejecting the objections filed by
the petitioners under Section 47 C.P.C. The
1418 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
No order as to costs.

25. Since the execution of a decree
passed in year 1965 is pending, the
executing court is directed to consider and
decide the execution case, in accordance
with law, expeditiously, preferably within a
period of six months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order
after giving opportunity of hearing to the
parties concerned and without granting
unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties provided that there is no other legal
impediment.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1418
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 11806 of
2025

Om Prakash Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Kalawati Devi & Ors. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Arvind Pandey, Satish Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:

Issue for Consideration
Whether Section 34 of the Gram Nyayalayas
Act, 2008 prohibits an appeal where the
valuation is less than Rs. 1,000/-

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227; The Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008Section 23, 34(2) (b)- The suit was filed in
the year 2000 which was transferred to
the Gram Nyayalaya in the year 2023 by
order of the District Judge and was
decided by Gram Nyayalaya by judgment
and decree passed on 07.05.2025- Right
of appeal will be governed by the law
prevailing at the time of institution of suit
and not the law prevailing at the time of
decision of the suit unless the provisions
of Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 are held to
be
retrospective-
Sub-Section
(c)
of
Section 34(2) of Gram Nyayalayas Act,
2008 provides an exception that an appeal
can be filed on a question of law where
the amount or the value of the subject
matter of such suit, claim or dispute does
not exceed Rs. 500/- Petition fails and is
dismissed.

Held- No illegality has been committed by the
appellate court in rejecting the objections filed
by the petitioner.(Para 24, 25 & 28)
Petition fails and is dismissed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Smt Siya Dulari Vs. Awadh Naresh reported in
2024 (4) ADJ 210; Mukund Deo (Dead)
represented by his legal representatives Kasibai
and others vs. Mahadeo and others reported in
AIR1965 SC 703; Garikapatti Veeraya vs N.
Subbiah
Choudhury;
1957
AIR
540;
MANU/SC/0008/1957; Bala Prasad v. Shyam
Behari Lal; [(1928) 26 A.L.J 406].; Daivanayaga
Reddiar v. Renukamba, Ammal; [(1927) I.L.R.
50 Mad. 857]; Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.
Ltd. v. Income Tax Commissioner; [(1927)
I.L.R. 9 Lah. 284]; am Singha Vs. Shankar Dayal
(1928) I.L.R. 50 All. 965 (F.B.); Colonial Sugar
Refining Company Ltd. Vs. Irving (1905) A.C.
369; M. Ramanarain Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Trading Corporation of India Ltd.; (1983) 3 SCC
75,; Nagendra Nath Vs. Suresh Chandra; AIR
1932 PC 165: 59 IA 283;

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Gram
Nyayalayas Act, 2008

List of Keywords
The Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008; Right of
appeal; Appeal can be filed on a question of
law; Section 34(2)

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 13.08.2025 passed
by District Judge, Varanasi in Civil Appeal No. 80