The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Rule 101 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires the executing court to determine questions relating to right, title, or interest in the property arising in a proceeding under Rule 97 or Rule 99, and the necessity of a detailed inquiry when contentious questions of facts and law are raised.

M.R. Verma, J.:—Since these three appeals arise out of a common judgment passed in three appeals by the learned District Judge, Shimla and involve common questions of law, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of these appeals are that three eviction orders in three different proceedings were passed by the Rent Controller in favour of one Kailash Dutta (since deceased and now represented by the appellants) against Ram Pal Sharma, Hukmi Devi and Rameshwari Devi respectively. Such eviction orders were sought to be executed by the appellants in each appeal by filing execution petition Nos. 29/10 of 1999/95, 30/10 of 1999/95 and 31/10 of 1999/95. Punjab Wakf Board (respondent No. 1 in each appeal and hereafter referred to as respondent No. 1) in each execution proceedings filed objection petitions. The case of the respondent in the objection petitions is that as per the entires in the revenue records one Abdulla a Sunni Mohammedan was the owner in possession of the property subject matter of the execution petitions since the year 1942. He was succeeded by Kamrudden who died some time during the year 1973-74 and the said property vested in the Muslim Wakf Committee, Shimla which later became Punjab Wakf Board Ambala i.e. respondent No. 1. Predecessor in interest of the appellants namely, S.J. Dutta (since deceased) also used to reside in a portion of the property defined as 149 and 150 Lower Bazar, Shimla and was managing the property in question as attorney/agent of Kamruddeen till his death. However, a forged Will was prepared whereby Kamrudeen is alleged to have bequeathed his estate in favour of Kailash Dutta the original decree holder who sold some of the property in question to different persons. Respondent No. 1 instituted a suit for declaration and possession of the suit property claiming therein that the appellants/their predecessor in interest have no right, title or interest in the property in question and thus not entitled to execute the decree and take possession from the judgment debtors. It was also further averred in the execution petition that the eviction orders sought to be executed are illegal, without jurisdiction and ineffective against the rights of respondent No. 1.

3. The appellants resisted the objection petitions. In their replies, they raised preliminary objections that the objections are not maintainable being mala fide having been filed in collusion with the JDs with ulterior motive, that respondent No. 1 has no locus standi to file the objections being not in possession of the property subject matter of the execution petitions in any capacity and cannot approach the executing Court under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code). On merits, it has been denied that. Kamrudeen did not execute any Will or that his estate devolved upon respondent No. 1 as alleged in the objection petitions. It has been claimed that by virtue of a valid Will the estate of, Kamrudeen was inherited by Kailash Dutta (the deceased DH) and the application moved by the objector under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code in the suit instituted by it stands dismissed by the concerned Court.

4. Respondent No. 1 filed rejoinders wherein the averments, as made out in the replies of the appellants, were denied and the version, as in the objection petitions, was reiterated.

5. The executing Court dismissed the objection petitions on the ground that respondent No. 1 has no locus standi to file such objections as it has not placed anything on the record which may show that the property in dispute is owned by it.

6. The orders of the executing Court dismissing the objections filed by respondent No.l were assailed by it by filing Civil Appeal Nos. 74-S/ 13, 75-S/13 and 76-S/13 of 2001 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Shimla who by his common impugned judgment accepted the appeals and the orders of the execu