ORDER

1. This petition arises from the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 17-2-1995 made in C.R.P. No. 496/94.

2. The petitioner is the judgment-debtor. The respondent laid O.S. No. 375/1985 for declaration of title to and for possession of the property bearing No. 21-6-652 situated at Chelapura, Hyderabad. By decree dated January 25, 1991 the trial Court declared him to be absolute owner of the suit property and also directed the petitioner "his men, tenants to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the land held by the petitioner". The decree had become final. When warrant was issued in execution for delivery of possession, the bailiff returned it on the ground that the petitioner had constructed shops and inducted tenants into possession and that, therefore, he cannot execute the warrant. Thereon, the respondent filed an application under Order 21, Rule 98 read with S. 151, C.P.C. to issue warrant to the bailiff to demolish the shops constructed by the petitioner and delivery vacant possession of the suit house. The executing Court, after enquiry, by its order dated September 30, 1993 directed bailiff by warrant to demolish the shops and to delivery vacant possession to the respondent. The petitioner carried the order in revision but was unsuccessful. This this SLP.

3. Two principal contentions raised all through are that in the absence of mandatory induction granted in the decree, the executing Court is devoid of power and jurisdiction to direct demolition of the shops constructed by the petitioner. The second contention is that the tenants in possession being not econominee parties to the decree are not bound by the decree of the trial Court and, therefore, the direction to dispossess them is illegal. The Courts below have rightly rejected both the contentions.

Order 21, Rule 101 provides that:

"All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 90 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions."

4. The executing Court, therefore, is mandated to decide all questions relating to right, title or interest in the property in the execution proceedings and not by way of a separate suit, notwithstanding anything contained contrary in any other law for the time being in force. Halsburys laws of England IVth Ed., Vol. 35 in paragraph 1214 at page 735, the word possession is used in various contexts and phrases, for example, in the phrase actual possession or to take possession or interest in possession or estate in possession or entitled in possession. In paragraph 1211 at page 732, legal possession has been stated that possession may mean that possession which is recognised and protected as such by law. Legal possession is ordinarily associated with de facto possession; but legal possession may exist without de factor possession, and de facto possession, is not always regarded as possession in law. A person who, although having no de facto possession, is deemed to have possession in law is sometimes said to have constructive possession. In paragraph 1216 at p. 736 it is stated that the right to have legal and de facto possession is a normal but not necessary incident of ownership. Such a right may exist with, or apart from, de facto or legal possession, and different persons at the same time in virtue of different proprietary rights.

5. In Blacks Law Dictionary, VIth Ed., the ownership has been defined as "collection of rights to use and enjoy property, including right to transmit it to others. Therefore, ownership i