The judgment emphasizes the importance of adjudicating the right, title, and interest in the immovable property under execution, as per the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and relevant case law.

JUDGMENT

KAPADIA, J.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.11.1997 passed by the High Court of Madras in C.R.P. No. 2960 of 1995, dismissing Miscellaneous Petition No. 600 of 1991 made by the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure, this civil appeal has been preferred by grant of special leave.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the Executing Court.

3. The facts giving rise to this civil appeal are as follows:-

P. Janardhana Rao, the plaintiff filed an Ejectment Suit No. 44 of 1989 in the Court of Small Causes, Madras for getting possession from Chelladurai and Bhagyalakshmi. The suit was decreed on 31.7.1990. Pursuant to the said decree, the plaintiff filed Execution Petition No. 175 of 1991 for obtaining delivery of possession. Three obstructionists Kannan, Krishnan and Raji resisted the plaintiff-decree holder from taking possession. In view of the said obstruction, the decree holder preferred miscellaneous petition No. 600 of 1991 under order 21 rule 97 CPC for removal of the obstruction put up by the aforestated three obstructionists (respondents herein).

4. In the said miscellaneous petition No. 600/1991, the executing Court recorded the evidence. PW1 deposed that in 1982 he purchased the suit property admeasuring 2300 sq. ft. situate in Friends Avenue, Razack Garden, Arumbakkam, Madras-106 vide Ex.P1, from Srinivasa Iyengar; that in 1982 when he brought the suit property, the three obstructionists were not there; that he had engaged two labourers, Chelladurai and Bhagyalakshmi, to construct his house; that on completion, Chelladurai and Bhagyalakshmi refused to vacate and, therefore, PW1 instituted the ejectment Suit No. 44 of 1989 in the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The suit was decreed. Appeal therefrom was dismissed. PW1 in his deposition further stated that the aforestated three obstructionists Kannan, Krishnan and Raji were put up by the judgment-debtors. In cross-examination, PW1 stated that he knew Kannan, Krishnan and Raji since 1980. He further stated that there were three houses in the suit property since 1980.

5. RW1, Thiru Krishnan, one of the obstructionists; deposed in his evidence that they were residing in the suit property from 1965; that the three houses belonged to them; that he resided in Vathalagundu Arumugam Nagar abutting Friends Avenue; that since 1965, he has been residing in Vathalagundu Arumugam Nagar; that he did not possess electricity bills of 1965; that he had not encroached upon the suit property; that he had electricity bills of 1993; that he had constructed a house on the suit property in 1965; and that he had paid property taxes only after 1989.

6. On the above evidence, the executing Court allowed the miscellaneous petition No. 600 of 1991, holding that there was no evidence of possession of the obstructionists from 1965 as claimed.

7. Being aggrieved, the obstructionists came before the High Court by way of revision under section 115 CPC. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the revision instituted by the obstructionists and dismissed the application of the decree-holder under order 21 rule 97, holding, that the three obstructionists were in occupation since 1980 i.e. prior to filing of the Ejectment Suit No. 44/1989. The High Court further held that there was no evidence to show that the three obstructionists were inducted by the judgment-debtors. In this connection, the High Court relied upon the statement of PW1 that he knew the obstructionists since 1980 and that they were residing in the houses in the suit property from 1980. Consequently, the revision filed by the three obstructionists was allowed. Hence, this civil appeal.

8. Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is the provision for removal of the person bound by the decree who does not vacate. It takes into amount a situation where resistance to possession is offered by the judgment-debtor or any other person bound by the decree which will includ