Back
P. S. DINESH KUMAR, C. M. POONACHA
A. Indra Kumari – Appellant
Versus
Uday Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C.M. Poonacha, J.
The above first appeal is filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') by the Plaintiff - Decree Holder challenging the order dated 14.9.2018 passed in Execution No.66/2011 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Executing Court'), whereunder the Executing Court has allowed the Application filed by the Applicant/Obstructor to the decree under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. The facts in brief necessary for adjudication of the above appeal are that a suit in OS No.395/2003 was filed by one Indra Kumari (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff/Decree Holder) against her brother Udayakumar (hereinafter referred to as Defendant/Judgment Debtor) for partition and separate possession. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 12.6.2008 wherein it was held that the Plaintiff and Defendant are entitled to 50% share each in the suit properties. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was challenged by the Defendant in RA.No.215/2008, which app
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....
Execution of joint decrees remains valid even with subsequent transfers of interest by decree-holders, and a judgment-debtor cannot escape execution by claiming ownership.
A third party claiming under a judgment debtor cannot file an application under Order XXI Rule 97; they must file under Rule 99 instead.
The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
Rule 97 read with Rule 101 of Order 21 post amendment wherein the executing court has to determine under Rule 101 Order 21 of the Code that the question raised has legally arisen between the parties ....
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.
One joint decree-holder may apply for execution for the benefit of all unless expressly stated otherwise; courts can assess intent beyond strict decree wording.
Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 of CPC must not issue notice on application of a third party claiming right in a mechanical manner.
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
