Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, PINKU MARIAM JOSE, ANIL KUMAR T.P.
For the Respondent: SUDHEER K C, B.PRAMOD, BIJU VIGNESWAR, ATHUL M.V.

Key Points: - The judgment discusses maintainability of a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC after sale completion and provisos (a) and (b) thereof. (!) (!) (!) - It analyzes the remedy for a 3rd party in possession under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and cites Shreenath v. Rajesh and others regarding "any person" resisting delivery. (!) (!) - It holds that the sale certificate in favor of the decree holder is legal and valid and addresses delivery of possession, suggesting settlement during delivery petition. (!) (!) - The case references Anthony v. Kunjavarankutty Hajee regarding maintainability after sale and the interpretation of proviso to Order 21 Rule 58. (!) (!) - It explains that a petition under Rule 151 can be treated as under Rule 97, and that maintainability can proceed if conditions under proviso are satisfied. (!) (!) - The factual sequence includes a sale in execution, delivery petition, and a claim petition to declare sale null and void on grounds of fraud. (!) (!) (!) - The appellate court’s reversal and ensuing second appeal culminates in holding the sale certificate as legal and order to proceed with possession delivery. (!)

What is the maintainability of a petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC after completion of sale?

What is the remedy of a 3rd party in possession claiming independent right over the decree schedule property when dispossession is sought by a decree holder?

What is the status and validity of the sale certificate and the decree holder’s right to delivery of possession in light of a claim petition under Rule 97/151 of CPC?