Back
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Surendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Aditya Kumar Sharma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kshitij Shailendra, J.
1. The appeal is listed for admission under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.
2. Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Vaibhav Goswami, for the appellant and Sri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The instant second appeal arises out of adjudication of an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC filed by the appellant, that has been rejected by the Executing Court against which a regular civil appeal was filed, which has also been dismissed.
CONTENTION OF APPELLANT
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that an Original Suit No. 323 of 1977 was filed by the respondent against one Prem Chandra claiming a decree for ejectment on the plea of tenancy of the defendant. The said suit was decreed by the trial court and Civil Appeal No. 139 of 1986 arising therefrom was dismissed. The defendant-Prem Chandra filed Second Appeal No.444 of 1996 which is pending before this Court. In so far as the present appellant is concerned, he was plaintiff no.2 in another Original Suit No.216 of 1996 (Nattho Devi and another Vs. Dr. Aditya Kumar Sharma) that was instituted claiming a decree for injunction re
Joint tenants cannot be dispossessed without due process, and their rights devolve upon the death of the original tenant.
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....
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 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a decree obtained by a tenant against a licensee can be executable against subsequent purchasers who are in possession without any lawful decr....
The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellant to substantiate his claim of independent tenancy rights under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19....
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 judgment emphasized the requirement for the court to adjudicate all questions of right, title, and possession in the property claimed by the objector under Order XXI Rule 97, and clarified the di....
The court affirmed that mere interest in property does not grant standing to object in execution proceedings if title has been conclusively determined.
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
