State Of M.P. vs Mangilal Sharma on 18 December, 1997
4. The Indira Vikas Patras, admittedly, were purchased by Voleti Subba Rao, who is the husband of first respondent and father of the second respondent. The specific case of the respondents is that they became entitled to the Indira Vikas Patras as legal heirs to the estate of said Subba Rao. I have extracted above the decree passed by the trial Court, which only declares the title of the respondents to the Indira Vikas Patras. There is no direction in the decree to the respondents to pay the amount covered by the Indira Vikas Patras. It is well known that the executing Court has to execute the decree as it is, but cannot read something, which is not in the decree. It is well known that a declaratory decree is incapable of execution, as it merely declares the rights of the decree holder and nothing more, and does not give any direction to the defendants (J.Drs.) either to do or to refrain from doing any act (See State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mangilal Sharma ). When there is no direction in the decree to pay the amount covered by the Indira Vikas Patras belonging to Voleti Subba Rao, question of respondents filing E.P. for recovery of the amounts covered thereby does not arise. Therefore, the Court below was in error in entertaining the E.P. and ordering steps for sale of the movable property belongs to the first revision petitioner.