Execution of possession decree limited to decretal property; executing court may demarcate land and recalculate mesne profits accordingly.

A decree for possession of immovable property can be executed only against the specific decretal land, and the executing court may demarcate the property where its exact extent is uncertain. The decree-holder cannot use execution to land outside the decree, including adjacent parcels or government land; any excess land taken must be restored. Mesne profits are recoverable only for wrongful occupation of the suit property and only for the relevant period until lawful delivery or relinquishment of possession. The earlier computation was set aside and required fresh determination within the limits of the decree.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the decree for possession could be executed only against the specific suit property and not against any adjacent land, and whether the executing court could direct demarcation of the decretal property. (ii) Whether the award and computation of mesne profits required reconsideration in execution proceedings and had to be limited to the period and property covered by the decree.

Issue (i): Whether the decree for possession could be executed only against the specific suit property and not against any adjacent land, and whether the executing court could direct demarcation of the decretal property.

Analysis: The suit and the decree related only to Plot No. 4/4. The record showed that Plot No. 4/4 and Plot No. 4/5 were distinct contiguous parcels and that the decree-holder could not take advantage of the execution process to obtain possession of land not covered by the decree. Where immovable property is involved, the plaint and decree must identify the property sufficiently, and if identification remains uncertain, the executing court may ascertain the exact decretal property as a matter relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree. A decree cannot be executed against property outside its scope, but it should not be defeated where demarcation is necessary to identify the exact land.

Conclusion: The decree was executable only in respect of Plot No. 4/4, and the executing court had to demarcate the property before delivery of possession. Any excess land, including land from Plot No. 4/5 or land belonging to the Delhi Government, was not liable to be taken in execution and had to be restored to the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the award and computation of mesne profits required reconsideration in execution proceedings and had to be limited to the period and property covered by the decree.

Analysis: Mesne profits are payable only for wrongful occupation of the decretal property and only for the relevant period until delivery or relinquishment of possession. Since part of the land had been taken in execution and the exact extent of the suit property required demarcation, the earlier computation could not stand without fresh examination by the executing court. The inquiry had to proceed on the basis of the decree as modified and within the limits of lawful possession of the suit property.

Conclusion: The computation of mesne profits was set aside for fresh determination in accordance with the decree, as modified, and limited to the period ending with relinquishment of possession of the suit property.

Final Conclusion: The impugned execution order was set aside, the matter was remitted to the executing court for fresh consideration, and the court was directed to demarcate the decretal property and ensure that execution and mesne profits were worked out only with reference to the suit property.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree for possession of immovable property can be executed only against the identifiable decretal property, and where its exact extent is in dispute, the executing court may determine the property by demarcation as part of execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree; mesne profits must correspond to lawful wrongful occupation of that property alone.

---