As per nikahnama of the petitioner and the respondent, her dower was settled as Rs.100,000/-, however, in lieu thereof, admittedly,....................

As per nikahnama of the petitioner and the respondent, her dower was settled as Rs.100,000/-, however, in lieu thereof, admittedly, 7 tola gold ornaments were given to her at the time of marriage that were later on taken back from her, which fact stood proved, when recovery suit was instituted and decree dated 17.12.2016 was passed holding that the petitioner is entitled to recover 7 tola gold ornaments or Rs.100,000/- as their alternate value. During the execution proceedings, the petitioner filed application for recovery of gold ornaments or alternate value at prevailing market rate, which was allowed, however, the said finding was upended by the Appellate Court below and it was held that the petitioner is only entitled to recover Rs.100,000/-. Held that the judgment of the Appellate Court below, during the execution proceedings, is not sustainable inasmuch as the Appellate Court below travelled beyond the decree whereby it was clearly held that primarily, it was 7 tola gold ornaments, which is dower of the petitioner. The word "alternate" used in the decree has special significance. It can be used both as noun or an adjective. In the legal context, when used as an adjective, it describes something that offers or expresses a choice. When used as noun, it describes something that substitutes another. In the context of a decree passed in a case, this choice is vested with the decree holder-the petitioner in present case. In the instant case, dower is very much clear in terms of its weight i.e., 07-Tola gold and is easily available in the market. The petitioner cannot be compelled to accept its alternate value that was settled at the time of Nikah and/or the decree. The ownership of the gold ornaments became vested in the petitioner and any accretion and appreciation of the value of gold ornaments are also to be cherished and enjoyed by the petitioner and she cannot be deprived of such accretion by offering alternate value fixed at the time of her Nikah. It has been further held that the duty of the Executing Court is to carry out the decree and not to add to it or hang it any way. In the instant case, it would be unjust to interpret the decree dated 17.12.2016 in such a manner as put forth by the respondent and justified by the Appellate Court below, during execution, as this would amount to vesting a choice in the judgment debtor (the respondent in present case) to satisfy a decree, which favours him by adopting such means of satisfaction of such decree that are detrimental to the interest of the female the petitioner/decree holder.