JUDGMENT : K. NATARAJAN, J. 1. This petition was filed by the petitioner/JDR for challenging the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod, in E.A. No.1/2025 in E.P. No.52 of 2024 in O.S. No.53 of 2020, and allowing the application filed by the decree holder under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., to amend the schedule of the property in the execution case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent objected to the petition and supported the order passed by the Execution Court. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent obtained the decree of Rs.10,59,560/- and filed an Execution Petition E.P. No. 52 of 2024 in O.S.No.53 of 2020. As per the decree obtained by the respondent in Ext.P1, the D Schedule property mentions that the property under mortgage was 67 cents of land in R.S No.150/2A Pt situated at Kodlamogaru Village, Manjeshwar Taluk, Kasaragod District. 4. While filing the Execution Petition, the decree holder mentioned the schedule of the property. Subsequently, the decree holder filed the amendment application, wherein the building and machinery said to be in existence on the land should be included in the schedule of the property in the decree. The JDR filed a counter, and the impugned order was passed by the Court below on 11.06.2025, by allowing the application, permitting the respondent/decree holder to amend the schedule of the property in the execution petition, which is under challenge. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the court do not have the power to modify the decree but only to execute the decree, and no authority to change the schedule mentioned in the decree. There is no mention of building and machinery in the property mentioned under the decree. The execution court has no authority to change the same; therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the orders passed by the Execution Court and contended that there is no wrong in the amendment for mentioning the building and affixture in the schedule of the property, which cannot be said to be a new amendment brought in the decree, and it cannot also be called a change of the decree. In support of his case, he has relied upon Section 3 Sub Section 26 of the General Clauses Act 1897‚ contending that immovable property means it includes the building and attachments. As per Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act , the immovable property, which also includes the land, is subject to attachment. Therefore, the question of stating dual ownership without the building and land cannot be acceptable in this case, and the petitioner himself filed a petition stating that he is the owner of the building and machinery even in the loan agreement, and the said property was given as security enables the building as well as the machinery and land has been mortgaged to the respondent at the time of getting the loan. Such being the case, even if the amendment is allowed there, it will not be a change in the decree or alter the decree of the court; therefore, to execute the decree of the land, which is valued by the Commissioner, will be beneficial to the JDR. Therefore, there is no wrong in the order passed by the Trial Court, and it cannot be said that the amendment was brought to record to alter the decree that is not correct; hence, the petitioner prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. The points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the Execution Court committed error in allowing the amendment to the schedule, which amounts to change of decree of the schedule property? (ii) Whether the order under challenge calls for any interference? Section 3 Sub Section 26 of the General Clauses Act 1897, reads as follows: “immovable property” shall include land, benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. 8. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this court that the property was mortgaged by the petitioner at the time of borrowing by loan/mortgaging the building, machinery, and the land. However, while creating the charge by the court or decreeing the suit, it was mentioned that only the land with a survey number or where the building and the machinery were not mentioned in the ‘D’ Scheduled property of the decree. However, while creating the charge by the court or decreeing the suit, it was mentioned that only the land with a survey number or where the building and the machinery were not mentioned in the ‘D’ Scheduled property of the decree. The decree holder filed the execution petition by mentioning the scheduled property, but did not mention the building and machinery in the schedule. Hence, an application was filed for amendment by mentioning the building and machinery in the scheduled property, which is in Survey No.150/2A pt having 67 cents situated at Kodlamogaru Village, Manjeshwar Taluk, Kasaragod District. 10. However, the respondent/decree holder, though filed E.P., but in the schedule, the building and machinery were not mentioned, even though it was given as a security under the loan. It is well settled that no amendment can be allowed in the execution petition for altering the decree and original decree passed by the court. The execution Court has only the power to execute the court decree, but cannot change the decree, as it is a settled position of law. However, if adding the building and machinery, which amounts to altering the decree by the execution court, it has to be considered by this court. The counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this court regarding Section 3 Sub-Section 26 of the General Clauses Act . Section 3 Sub-Section 26 of immovable property has been defined as under: Section 3 Sub-Section 26-Immovable Property shall include land benefits arising out of land and things attached to the earth, permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that, as per Section 3 , the definition of the Transfer of Property Act , where the attachment of the immovable property, the attachment to the earth means the building and other assets, i.e., encumbered in earth, as in the case of a wall or buildings. Therefore, as per Section (3)26(b), embedded in the earth also, as in the case of walls and buildings. Upon perusal of these two provisions, it is clear that the land is an immovable property which includes the building and its fixtures. Therefore, even if the amendment is allowed by the execution court by including the building and machinery, that cannot be said to be amending the decree. 12. Upon perusal of these two provisions, it is clear that the land is an immovable property which includes the building and its fixtures. Therefore, even if the amendment is allowed by the execution court by including the building and machinery, that cannot be said to be amending the decree. 12. For the perusal of this court, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in M/s. Laxmi Enterprises v. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, ILR 2012 KAR 5474 and Another. In this case, it has not been disputed that the petitioner /JDR was the owner of the building as well as the machinery, including the land, which is also mentioned in the loan agreement executed by the petitioner, wherein the security has been given, including the land as well as the building and the machinery. The decretal court clearly passed the decree, without mentioning the building or machinery in the ‘D’-Schedule, but it cannot be said that the building and the machinery are separable and are beyond the ownership of the said land. Therefore, for the purpose of execution of the decree, and even if it is amended in the execution petition mentioning the building and machinery, it will be beneficial to the JDR, and if it is valued by the Commissioner, the value of the property will be more while it is executed. 13. That apart, even in the case of money decree, the property may not be created charge and money decree can be executed by attaching the property which was not created charge by the decretal court, and if any new property is also available, the court can proceeded to attach the property, and there is no property even the court can pass the order issuing arrest warrant to the JDR. Such being the case, merely adding the building and machinery will not mean it is a change of decree passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the execution court rightly allowed the petition by allowing the amendment by mentioning that the building and the machinery will not amount to a change of the decree, and building and fixtures are parts of the immovable property as per Section 3 (26) of the General Clauses Act and Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act . Therefore, the execution court rightly allowed the petition by allowing the amendment by mentioning that the building and the machinery will not amount to a change of the decree, and building and fixtures are parts of the immovable property as per Section 3 (26) of the General Clauses Act and Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act . Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this original petition is dismissed.