Holding

The executing court cannot order removal of a tree not covered by the decree; the decree only restrains planting of trees.

Summary

The plaintiff obtained a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from planting any tree on specified Khasra parcels. The decree holder later filed an application for execution seeking removal of a Bohar tree that stood on the disputed land. The executing court, relying on a commissioner’s report, interpreted the decree to prohibit any tree within two karams of the boundary and ordered the tree’s removal, a decision affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the decree expressly barred only the planting of trees and did not empower the decree holder to demand removal of pre‑existing trees. Consequently, the executing court cannot go beyond the plain terms of the decree or construe a broader ‘spirit’ not granted by the decree. The Court set aside the lower courts' orders and remitted the matter to the executing court to determine whether the tree existed before the decree was passed. The appeal was allowed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the executing court can order removal of a tree not mentioned in the decree of permanent injunction.
Whether the decree authorizes execution for removal of pre‑existing trees.
Whether the executing court may interpret the decree beyond its plain meaning to give effect to a presumed spirit of the decree.

Subjects

permanent injunctionexecution of decreejurisdictioninterpretation of decreecivil proceduretree removal

Judgment

-+
I

GURDEV SINGH A
V.
~
NARAIN SINGH

NOVEMBER 12, 2007
B
1 [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

Execution ofdecree-Jurisdiction ofexecuting court-Decree of
permanent injunction restraining defendant from planting tree on suit
land-Application for execution praying/or removal oftrees from suit c
land-Allowed by executing court observing that clear and plain
meaning of decree was that there should be no tree on the specified
site-HELD: Executing court cannot go behind the decree-As decree
did not clothe decree-holder to pray for execution ofdecree by way of
removal oftrees, same could not have been directed by executing court D
in the name ofconstruing the spirit ofdecree under execution-Matter
remitted to executing court to determine as to whether tree in question
was in existence prior to passing ofthe decree or not.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5237 of EI
2007.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.2.2006 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No. 4526/2004.
Sarup Singh, Yash Pal Dhingra and Kuldip Singh for the Appellant. F
>-
G.S. Punia, Davender Mohan Verma and Minakshi Vij for the
Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered by
G
ORDER
-{

Leave granted.
• Respondent herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the
1093 H
'
t
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

_A appellant. The suit was marked as Civil Suit No. 226 of 1987. A decree
for permanent injunction was passed by the le'arned trial Judge on
19.1.1989, the operative portion whereof reads as under:
"'I)lls suit comes today before me (Balbir Singh PCS, Addi.
B Senior Sub Judge Jagraon) f~r final disposal, in the presence of
the counsel for the parties, it is ordered that:- (illegible)
the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant for a
permanent injunction restraining the defendant from planting tree
on the Khasra No. 17/2 on the one side and Khasra No. 218/1
c and 17/1 on the other side situate in the area of village Abbupura
Tehsil, Jagraon, District Ludhiana peculiar circumstances of the
case, the parties are left to their own costs."

The decree holder filed an application for execution of the decree
D praying, inter alia, for removal of the tree from the lands in question. A
Commissioner was appointed. He submitted a report stating as under:
(i) I compared the site plan with the situation of the disputed
. property where tree of Bohar exists. -

E (ri) I measured the distance of Bohar tree from the common butt
of Khasra Nos. 17/2 and 218/1 with the help ofa measurement
tape. The centre point of Butt upto the centre point of radius
ofBohar tree is 11 feet i.e. 2 karams.
(Iii) The branches of Bohar tree comes across the common Butt
F
into Khasra No. 218/1 approximately 6/7 feets. _.I.,_

(iv) I prepared a rough site plan at the spot, which is also attached
t::
~

'
herewith. According to my observation the half portion of the
Bohar tree falls within two karams from the common Butt of '-.-

G properties of the parties." I
~
\.-

The learned Commissioner in his report did not state that the Bohar
tree was planted after passing of the decree. ~

The executing Court relying on or the basis of the said report as
H
I-
i

1
GURDEV SINGH v. NARAIN SINGH 1095

also some decisions of this Court while holding that the executing Court A
has the requisite jurisdiction to construe a decree, opined as under:
" Now applying ratio of the above said cases this Court has
to see what was spirit of the decree which was under execution
and clear that the plain meaning of the decree is that there should
no tree within two karams on either side of the common boundary B'
of the parties and if it is there, the executing court can very well
order its removal in order to give effect to the spirit of the decree.
In the present case, it has been reported by the Local
Commissioner that the tree is within 2 karams. Moreover, J.D. C
does not plead any claim over that tree. Rather he pleads it to be
a naturally grown tree. So, in these circumstances direction is given
to the J.D. to remove the trees which is standing within 2 karams
of the common butt within a period of one month from today."

By reason of the impugned judgment the High Court has affirmed D
the said order.
Mr. Swamp Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant would submit that the executing Court as also the High Colllt
committed a manifest error in interpreting the decree. E
We agree with the said contention. A bare perusal of the decree in
question would clearly demonstrate that the appellant herein was restrained
by a permanent injunction from planting any tree on khasra Nos. 17/2 on
the one side and khasra No. 218/1and1711 on the other side. The decree F
did not speak of removal of any tree which had already been planted.
The executing Court, as noticed hereinbefore, while interpreting the said
decree proceeded completely on a wrong premise to hold that there
should not be any tree within two karams on either side of the common
boundary of the parties. Such an interpretation evidently is not in G
consonance with the tenor of the decree. A jurisdictional error, thus, has
been committed by the High Court.

It is well stated that executing Court cannot go behind the decree.
As the decree did not clothe the decree holder to pray for execution of
H
\

~·
\
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.

A the decree by way of removal of the trees, the same could not have been
directed by the learned executing Court in the name of construing the spirit
of the decree under execution.
We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter
B to the executing Court for determination of the question as to whether
the Bohar tree in .question was in existertce prior to passing of the decree
or not. The executing Court thereafter may proceed with the matter in
accordance with law.
The appeal is allowed. No costs.
c
RP. Appeal allowed.

:;-