Back
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Jakirul Islam, S/o. Late Somir Ali @ Somir Sheikh – Appellant
Versus
Karifuddin, S/o. Late Farazulla – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The respondents are the decree holder in respect of a judgment and decree dated 09.03.2009 in Title Suit No. 112/2007 passed by the Court of learned Munsiff, Bilasipara at Dhubri, which had been confirmed by the judgment and order dated 01.11.2011 in RSA No. 277/2011. Accordingly, for execution of the decree, Title Ex. Case No. 03/2011 had been instituted by the respondents in the Court of learned Munsiff, Bilasipara at Dhubri. The present petitioners/appellants claiming adverse possession over the suit land involved in the decree in favour of the respondents filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 and 101 of the CPC read with Section 47 of the CPC resisting the execution of the decree. Order XXI Rule 101 makes it explicit that an application under Order XXI Rule 97 or Rule 99 shall be determined by the Court in respect of all questions including questions relating right, title and interest of the property arising between parties and not by a separate suit for the purpose. Accordingly, it has to be understood that the application under Order XXI Rule
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of correctly interpreting the appropriate appeal provision under the CPC for a specific case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Executing Court to adjudicate upon controversies between the parties in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 97....
Ownership claims through tenancy do not equate to legal possession under the Civil Procedure Code, impacting the maintainability of applications for adjudication.
The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
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 executing court cannot entertain pleas contrary to the decree, and the execution of a decree should not be thwarted on untenable grounds having no bearing on its validity or executability.
Possessory rights must be substantiated by evidence for a third party to obstruct execution of a decree under Order XXI Rule 97.
A person claiming independent right, title or interest in the property can resist delivery of possession even by filing an objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in the executing court itself and if th....
Third parties can seek protection of possession under CPC provisions, and courts must follow due process in such applications.
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
