Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Sriram Housing Finance And Investment India Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust - Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4649 OF 2022 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.12833 OF 2014]
Decided On : 06-07-2022
Will - Property Dispute - Order XXI Rule 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 - The court discussed the objections raised by the appellant company under Order XXI Rule 97 to 101 of CPC against the execution of the decree. The court found that the appellant company, as a bonafide purchaser, was not entitled to raise objections under Rule 97 and 99 as it was not the decree holder and had not been dispossessed of the property. The court held that Rule 101 did not apply as the appellant was not entitled to make an application under Rule 97 or 99. The High Court was right in setting aside the order of the Trial Court entertaining the objections filed by the appellant under Order XXI Rule 97 to 102.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute arising from the execution of a judgment and decree passed in a civil suit. The appellant company, a bonafide purchaser of the property, filed objections under Order XXI Rule 97 to 101 of CPC against the execution of the decree, claiming ownership based on a sale deed. The respondent trust, along with legal heirs of the deceased property owner, were the decree holders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant company, as a bonafide purchaser, was not entitled to raise objections under Rule 97 and 99 as it was not the decree holder and had not been dispossessed of the property. The court held that Rule 101 did not apply as the appellant was not entitled to make an application under Rule 97 or 99. The High Court was right in setting aside the order of the Trial Court entertaining the objections filed by the appellant under Order XXI Rule 97 to 102.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant company, as a bonafide purchaser, had the right to raise objections under Order XXI Rule 97 to 101 of CPC against the execution of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Order XXI Rule 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, and 102 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court held that the appellant company, not being the decree holder and not having been dispossessed of the property, was not entitled to raise objections under Rule 97 and 99. The court also found that Rule 101 did not apply as the appellant was not entitled to make an application under Rule 97 or 99.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Executing Court was directed to decide the execution case expeditiously within six months.
Key Points: - A bonafide purchaser who is not the decree holder and has not been dispossessed is not entitled to raise objections under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 (!) (!) (!) . - Rule 101 does not apply because the purchaser is not entitled to make an application under Rule 97 or 99 (!) . - Only the decree holder or an auction purchaser can apply under Rule 97 for resistance or obstruction by any person (!) (!) (!) . - Dispossession must be by the decree holder or purchaser for Rule 99 to apply; the purchaser was in possession and not dispossessed (!) (!) (!) . - The High Court was correct in setting aside the Trial Court’s order entertaining the purchaser’s objections (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 16.04.2014 passed by High Court of Delhi in C.M. (M) No.493 of 2012, preferred by appellant company herein under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the order dated 13.01.2012 passed in Execution Petition No.46 of 2006, vide which, the Executing Court entertained the objections filed by appellant company and proceeded to frame issues with a direction to the parties to lead evidence on those issues.
3. The Execution Petition was filed by respondent trust, alongwith legal heirs of late Shri N.D. Mishra for execution of judgment and decree dated 01.02.2003 passed by Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 278 of 2002. The suit was filed by late Shri N.D. Mishra making prayer for a decree for: (i) possession of suit property; (ii) sum of Rs.8000/on account of arrear of rent for the month of May, 1994; (iii) sum of Rs.30,000/towards damages/mesne profits/other charges for unauthorized use and occupation by the defendant with effect from 01.06.1994 till the date the defendant delivers back possession of suit property; (iv) permanent injunction against the defendant restraining her from using the suit property; and (v) mandatory injunction against the defendant restraining her from obstructing the plaintiff in enjoying the right of passage from main entrance on ground floor to the terrace. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs while restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff from enjoying the right of passage from the main entrance on ground floor to the terrace and from raising further construction. Further regarding damages and mesne profits, the Trial Court directed payment of Rs.30,000/per month with effect from 01.06.1994 till the date of delivery of possession of suit property by the defendant. Execution proceedings were initiated by decree holders and being aggrieved, the appellant company filed objections before Executing Court, which were duly considered and decided by the Court vide order dated 13.01.2012. The said order was challenged by the respondent trust before the High Court by filing the petition, which was allowed vide order dated 16.04.2014 setting aside the order of the Executing Court.
4. The facts briefly put are that, one late Shri N.D. Mishra (now deceased) was the owner of the property in dispute i.e. Kothi No.27, situated at Ishwar Nagar in New Delhi. The disputed property was selfacquired by the deceased. Shri N.D. Mishra had a family consisting his wife Smt. Raj Mishra (now deceased), two sons namely Mr. Yogesh Mishra and Mr. Omesh Mishra (now deceased) and three married daughters namely Smt. Dheera Sharma, Smt. Neena Bharadwaj and Smt. Meena Sharma. In memory of the deceased son, the respondent trust was established in year 1992 by Smt. Raj Mishra in the name and style of “Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust”.
5. The history of instant litigation starts from the time when late Shri N.D. Mishra in year 1986, lent a portion of the ground floor of the suit property on lease to one Ms. Nisha Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as ‘tenant’) for a period of two years at the monthly lease rent of Rs. 7000/. On expiry of the period, the lease was terminated but the tenant failed to vacate the suit property, whereafter, Shri N.D. Mishra filed Civil Suit No.181 of 1994 (i.e. suit for possession/recovery of arrears of rent/damages/mesne profit and mandatory/permanent injunction) against the tenant. During the pendency of suit, Shri N.D. Mishra died on 27.05.1998. On 13.08.1998, by filing application under Order XXII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), substitution was allowed by Trial Court and Smt. Raj Mishra (wife), Mr. Yogesh Mishra (son), Mrs. Dheera Sharma, Mrs. Neena Bharadwaj and Mrs. Meena Sharma (daughters) were substituted as legal heirs. Later, one Subhash Chander Sabharwal (the authorized trustee of respondent trust herein) moved an applic
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a bonafide purchaser, not being the decree holder and not having been dispossessed of the property, is not entitled to raise objections under ....
Objection to execution of decree – Appellant who is a bonafide purchaser of property and not decree holder, cannot take shelter of Rule 97 of CPC to raise objections against execution of decree passe....
A third party claiming under a judgment debtor cannot file an application under Order XXI Rule 97; they must file under Rule 99 instead.
A person in possession of property has the right to object to the execution of a decree under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, and the trial court must consider such objections before proceeding with execution.
The executing court is competent to consider all questions raised by the persons offering obstruction against execution of the decree and pass appropriate order, which is to be treated as a decree. T....
The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
