Procedure to be followed by court if there is any ambiguity in decree

 If the suit for specific performance is not decreed as prayed for, then alone the question of any reference to the alternative relief would arise. Therefore, there is no question of any ambiguity. As held by this Court in Topanmal Chhotamal v. Kundomal Gangaram and Others[3] and consistently followed thereafter, even if there is any ambiguity, it is for the executing court to construe the decree if necessary after referring to the Judgment. If sufficient guidance is not available even from the Judgment, the Court is even free to refer to the pleadings so as to construe the true import of the decree. No doubt, the court cannot go behind the decree or beyond the decree. But while executing a decree for specific performance, the Court, in case of any ambiguity, has necessarily to construe the decree so as to give effect to the intention of the parties.

Supreme Court of India

Rajinder Kumar vs Kuldeep Singh & Ors on 7 February, 2014

Bench: Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Kurian Joseph

Print Page

How court can interprete ambiguous decree?

At the worst the decree can be said to be ambiguous. In such a case it is the duty of the executing Court to construe the decree. For the purpose of interpreting a decree, when its terms are ambiguous, the Court would certainly be entitled to look Into the pleadings and the judgment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Decided On: 08.09.1959

Appellants:Topanmal Chhotamal
Vs.
Respondent:Kundomal Gangaram and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.P. Sinha, P.B. Gajendragadkar and K. Subba Rao, JJ.

Citation:AIR 1960 SC 388

Print Page

Whether court is entitled to take in to consideration pleadings of parties for construction of ambiguous decree?

In Topanmal Chhotamal Vs. M/s. Kundomal Gangaram
reported in AIR 1960 SC 388, the Supreme Court held that when an
ambiguous decree is passed, it is the duty of the executing court to

interpret the decree and for this purpose, the court is entitled to look
into the pleadings and the judgment. Similar observation was made in
Bhavan Vaja Vs. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang reported in AIR 1972
SC 1371, where the Apex Court made the following observation.
“19. 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 upto 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
executing Court and if that Court fails to discharge that duty it has plainly
failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. Evidently the execution court
in this case thought that its jurisdiction began and ended with merely
looking at the decree as it was finally drafted. Despite the fact that the
pleadings as well as the earlier judgments rendered by the Board as well as
by the appellate Court had been placed before it, the execution Court does
not appear to have considered those documents. If one reads the order of
that Court, it is clear that it failed to construe the decree though it purported
to have construed the decree. In its order there is no reference to the
documents to which we have made reference earlier. It appears to have been
unduly influenced by the words of the decree under execution. The appellate
Court fell into the same error. When the matter was taken up in revision to
the High Court, the High Court declined to go into the question of the
construction of the decree on the ground that a wrong construction of a
decree merely raises a question of law and it involves no question of
jurisdiction to bring the case within Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. As
seen earlier in this case the executing Court and the appellate Court had not
construed the decree at all. They had not even referred to the relevant
documents. They had merely gone by the words used in the decree under
execution. It is clear that they had failed to construe the decree. Their
omission to construe the decree is really an omission to exercise the
jurisdiction vested in them.”
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh)
CRP No. 440 of 2006
Illiasuddin Ahmed,

-Versus-
Md. Hachnian Ahmed,
S/O Late Mominuddin,

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
Date of Hearing & Judgment :
20th January, 2015
Citation;AIR 2015 Gauhati 49

Print Page