JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Indira Shah, J. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the Caveator. 2. The caveat stands discharged. 3. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj in Title Execution Case No. 05/2015 whereby the petition filed by the judgment debtors (Defendant Nos. 1 and 2) under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed and the prayer was rejected. 4. The opposite party as plaintiff No. 1 along with Ranjit Ch. Paul as Plaintiff No. 2 filed the Title Suit No. 53/2000 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karimganj against the petitioners and one Smti Binapani Das, former defendant No. 3 praying for declaration of Landholder Right & Maliki Right of the plaintiff No. 1 over the suit premises, for declaration of “Bharatia Tenancy Right” of the plaintiff No. 2 in the suit premises under the plaintiff No. 1 and for recovery of khas possession of the suit land along with the house standing thereon by evicting the principal defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in order to enable the plaintiff No. 1 to restore possession of the plaintiff No. 2 in the suit holding. 5. The petitioners contested the suit by filing written statement but former defendant No. 3 did not contested the suit. The suit was dismissed on contest. Both the plaintiffs preferred the Title Appeal No. 09/2003 against the Judgment and Decree passed against them and the learned District Judge, Karimganj vide Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.2004 reversed the trial court's Judgment and declared that : (1) The land holders and Maliki Rights of the plaintiff No. 1 over the suit property. (2) Bharatiya Tenancy Right of the plaintiff No. 2 in the suit holding subject to the creation of such tenancy in the light of Section 56(2) of the Wakf Act. (3) Recovery of khas possession of the suit property evicting the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 there from in order to restore the plaintiff No. 2 therein as tenant in terms of the relief No. 2 above. 6. The plaintiff No. 1 herein as a Wakf Estate is the owner of the suit land and the house. The father of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 there from in order to restore the plaintiff No. 2 therein as tenant in terms of the relief No. 2 above. 6. The plaintiff No. 1 herein as a Wakf Estate is the owner of the suit land and the house. The father of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 herein was inducted as tenant by virtue of a Deed of Memorandum dated 14.05.1969 and the contractual tenancy between the plaintiff No. 1 and father of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 ceased with effect from 15.05.1970 but he continued to possess the suit property till his death in the year 1972. After his death, his wife Smti Binapani Das surrendered the tenancy on 02.03.1996 by way of 'Ishatafanama' in favour of plaintiff No. 1. Thereafter, plaintiff No. 2 was settled as tenant through an Agreement “Swarnanlipi”. The plaintiffs alleged in their plaint that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 dispossessed the plaintiff No. 2 from the suit property. The defendants' case was that they continued to be in possession of the suit premises even after surrender of tenancy by their mother Smti Bina Pani Das Sarkar. 7. Against the Judgment and Decree passed by the appellate court, the petitioners filed a regular second appeal being registered as RSA No. 205/2004 and this Court dismissed the second appeal and thus the Judgment and Decree passed by the first appellate court was upheld. 8. When the execution proceeding was initiated by the plaintiff No. 1, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 47 read with Section 47 of the CPC raising objection against the execution of the decree on the following two grounds : (1) The co-plaintiff is a necessary party to the execution case and without impleading the co-plaintiff, the execution cannot proceed. Therefore, execution is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. (2) The petitioner claimed that as per Judgment of 1st appellate court, which is affirmed by the second appellate court, a decree holder as per relief No. 2 has to first create Bharatia Tenancy Agreement with plaintiff No. 2 and thereafter he has to sought for eviction of the petitioners from the suit property and to seek relief for recovery of possession of the suit property. 9. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that this High Court in RSA No. 205/2004 observed that the surrender of tenancy by defendant No. 3 appears only to be a surrender by 'paper' but no actual delivery of possession has been there. No evidence adduced to establish any forcibly dispossession of plaintiff No. 2 by defendant No. 1. The version of plaintiff No. 2 was inducted into possession and came to be dispossessed later does not appear to be a tenable one. But the second appellate court in para 17 of the Judgment clearly observed that any lease beyond one year and not beyond three years should be by a deed of instrument with the previous sanction of the Board and beyond three years even the Board has no power to create a lease, and the law declares that such a lease is void. The said provisions of “Section 56 of the Wakf Act” clearly debar the continuation of the tenancy rights beyond three years. The said provisions impliedly do not envisage the inheritance of the leasehold rights by heirs of the lessee without there being a fresh lease in favour of Smti Binapani Das Paul. 10. It was also observed that since the defendant is not a tenant, he does not enjoy, in legal sense, any protection under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act; therefore the civil suit filed for eviction and recovery of possession appears sound and proper. First appellate court also observed as under: “Of course, the evidence is inadequate to find if the plaintiff No. 2 (Ranjit Paul) was actually dispossessed by the defendant No. 1 & 2 on 19.08.1996 from the suit premises. But still the fact remains pursuant to the foregoing evidentiary deliberation that the plaintiff No. 2 is a recognised tenant of the plaintiff No. 1 and the latter is at liberty to put the former in possession of the said premises as a tenant for the statutorily permissive period after recovering the vacant possession thereof ejecting the defendants No. 1 and 2 there from in due process of law.” 11. Relying on the case of Jagadish Dutt & Anr. Relying on the case of Jagadish Dutt & Anr. v. Dharam Pal & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 644 it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Order 21, Rule 15 CPC enables a joint decree holder to execute a decree in its entirety but if whole of the decree cannot be executed, this provision cannot be of any avail. In the cited case, the decree was passed in favour of a joint family and it was held that where a joint decree for actual possession of immovable property is passed and one of the coparceners assigns or transfers his interest in the subject matter of the decree in favour of the judgment debtor, the decree gets extinguished to the extent of the interest so assigned and execution could lie only to the extent of remaining part of the decree. A joint decree can be executed as a whole since it is not divisible and it can be executed in part only where the share of the decree holders are defined or those shares can be predicted or the share is not in dispute. 12. The above cited cases have no relevancy since in the cited cases, it was decreed in favour of a joint family, as per Order 21, Rule 15 CPC, any one of the decree holders in which favour the decree has been passed can execute the decree for the benefit of all. 13. Here in this case, admittedly the plaintiff No. 1 has acquired land holding and Maliki Rights over the suit property. Plaintiff No. 2 was given conditional relief declaring his Bharatia Right subject to the creation of such tenancy in the line of Section 56 (2) of the Wakf Act. The relief of recovery of khas possession has been given to the plaintiff No. 1 and in the relief, it has been stated that in order to restoring plaintiff No. 2 as tenant in terms of relief No. 2. The tenancy right of the plaintiff No. 2 cannot be created in terms of Section 56 (2) of the Wakf Act, if the khas possession of the suit property, evicting the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, from the suit property, is not restored in favour of the plaintiff No. 1. Moreover, the first appellate court as well as the second appellate court in clear terms held that defendant Nos. 1 and 2, from the suit property, is not restored in favour of the plaintiff No. 1. Moreover, the first appellate court as well as the second appellate court in clear terms held that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are not tenants and they do not enjoy any legal rights or protection. 14. It is a settled law that though an executing court cannot go beyond the decree in execution but the duty is caste upon the executing court to find out the true meaning of the decree. In order to find out the meaning of words employed in a decree the executing court often has to ascertain the circumstances under which those words came to be used. Reference may be made to the cases of Topanmal Chhotamal v. Kundomal Gangaram and Ors. ( AIR 1960 SC 388 ), Rajwamt Singh Gulati and Ors. v. Haradhan Dutta (2002(2) GLT 279) and Bhavan Vaja and Ors. v. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang and Anr. ( AIR 1972 SC 1371 . 15. Here in this case, the learned executing court has committed no error and rightly rejected the execution petition filed under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC and therefore order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj passed in Title Execution Case No. 05/2015 needs no interference. 16. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly the petitioners are in possession over the suit land since long, they may be allowed a reasonable time to vacate the suit premises. 17. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that a reasonable time of two months may be allowed. 18. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court allow-es the petitioners to evict the suit premises within four (4) months. On their failure to evict, the executing court may proceed with the decree in terms of law. 19. With the above direction, this civil revision petition stands disposed of. 20. Send a copy of this to the learned court below.