CASE : Mt.

Phool kuer vs Manohar Mal 1954

SUBMITTED BY-
SAJAL SANATAN, B.A., LL.B.(HONS.)
(5th Semester), (Roll No.- 2149)
SUBMITTED TO-
DR. MEETA MOHINI
(Guest Faculty Law)
This rough draft is submitted in partial fulfilment in C.P.C. and Law of Limitation
for the completion of B.A., LL.B.(Hons.) course.

JULY 2021
CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,
PATNA.
INTRODUCTION

The suit was being filed by the respondent regarding possession of the property( Art.64 ,
schedule1 of limitation act) and damages caused to it .
There was a suit for possession of her property of two houses. After filing the decree ,after a
month she( respondent) filed for the execution of the decree (order 21 ,CPC) and claimed
both the possession of her house and also the damage caused by the appellant . After the
appellant object the application of respondent , it was found that there was damage to her
property and hence the possession was also granted to the respondent . similarly the lower
court also challenged that the claim made by appellant was not maintainable under sec 47 of
CPC.
After the death of respondents mother their son becomes the legal representative (sec50 CPC)
and thus the report of possession and damages caused to the property was given to them .
The question that arises is whether it was open to the lower court to enter into the question of
the damage done by the appellant to the houses in dispute in execution proceedings u/s 47,
Civil P. C. Under that section all questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction
of a decree must be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
The allegations of the respondents are that after the decree was passed in their favour for
possession over the houses, the appellant-judgment-debtor damaged them and that
consequently they are entitled to be compensated for the damage. There is no question of the
execution of the decree; the decree has been executed by delivery of possession over the
houses.

OBJECTIVES
 To analyse some rules of order 21 of CPC used in this case
 To analyse the value of sec 47 of CPC in a suit.
 To analyse the power and duties of an executing court

HYPOTHESIS
The researcher has formulated the hypothesis that whether the lower court or other court can
challenge the decree of an executing court.
MODE OF RESEARCH
 The researcher has relied upon the Doctrinal method of research for the completion of
this project.

TENTATIVE CHAPTERISATION
1. INTRODUCTION.
2. RULES UNDER ORDER 21 OF C.P.C., 1908.
3. BRIEFLY ANALYSING SEC 47 OF CPC
4. CASE LAWS BASED ON SEC 47 OF CPC
5. CONCLUSION.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources: Books and Bare Act.

1. C.K. Takwani’s Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963. Eighth Edition, published
by Eastern Book Company Pvt. Ltd.
2. B. M. Prasad & S. K. Sarvaria, Mulla’s Code of Civil Procedure (17th ed., 2007).
3. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Bare Act).

Secondary Sources: Materials Available on the internet.