A mere objection to the execution of a decree does not entitle an objector to a full inquiry unless accompanied by prima facie evidence of independent title or possession.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

1. The captioned appeal is filed by the appellants-Objectors assailing the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed in Ex.No.2401/2024 by the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-57) on the application tendered by the Objectors.

2. Though an objection was raised by the Office with regard to the maintainability of the appeal and though the specific statutory provision was not indicated in the objection tendered before the Executing Court, the objections filed to the main execution petition unmistakably satisfy the essential ingredients of Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the impugned order answers the description of a decree within the meaning of the Code, and the appeal is therefore maintainable before this Court.

3. Respondent No.1 – the Decree Holder instituted a suit in O.S.No.3159/2021 against respondent No.2 – the original Judgment Debtor seeking ejectment. The suit was founded on the assertion that the lease in favour of respondent No.2 had been terminated and that the Decree Holder was entitled to recover possession of the suit schedule property. During the trial, the present appellant No.1 – Objector was examined on behalf of respondent No.2–Tenant as D.W.2.

4. Upon appreciation of the evidence of the Decree Holder, the Judgment Debtor and D.W.2, the Trial Court decreed the suit recording a categorical finding that respondent No.2 was inducted as a tenant by respondent No.1. Accordingly, respondent No.2 was directed to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to respondent No.1 within a period of four months.

5. The said judgment and decree was carried in appeal by respondent No.2–Tenant in RFA No.2637/2024. This Court, by judgment and decree dated 21.08.2025, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree of eviction.

6. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the present appellant No.1, who had earlier deposed as D.W.2 in the suit, filed an application objecting to the execution. It was asserted that though the suit schedule property stands in the name of respondent No.1 – Decree Holder, the sale consideration was paid by the appellants– Objectors that the old structure was demolished and a new building was constructed in the year 2014 by investing substantial amounts and that the property is, therefore, a joint family ancestral property. It was further contended that a partition suit in O.S.No.74/2021 is pending in respect of the said property and therefore, respondent No.1 is not entitled to take possession. The Objectors also claimed that they had secured possession from respondent No.2–Tenant in the year 2021 and being in actual physical possession, the decree passed in O.S.No.3159/2021 is inexecutable. On these grounds, dismissal of the execution petition was sought. The Executing Court, however, rejected the said application.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Objectors reiterating the grounds urged vehemently contended that the Executing Court has acted contrary to the scheme envisaged under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC by summarily rejecting the objections without conducting an enquiry. It was urged that the procedure adopted is fundamentally flawed, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as the Objectors were denied an opportunity to substantiate their independent right, title and interest in the suit schedule property. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the following decisi