Point of Law :
Rule 58 as well as Rules 97, 101, to invoke the provisions opposing attachment / sale of the property - The claimant is required to establish his right, title or interest in the property attached or its delivery in favour of the decree holder, which is required to be considered under Order 21 Rule 101 of CPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. For the sake of convenience, the appellants herein are referred to as the claim petitioners, the 1st respondent as the decree holder and the remaining respondents as the judgment debtors.

2. This Appeal is filed questioning the order dated 16.10.2017 in E.A.No.24 of 2017 in E.A.No.19 of 2017 in E.P.No.29 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad. Along with this Appeal, CCCAMP No. 713 of 2017 (I.A. No. 1 of 2017) was also filed and on 23.11.2017, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.29 of 2014 up to 27.12.2017 and the same was being extended from time to time. The decree holder moved CCCAMP.No.806 of 2017 seeking vacation of the interim order granted earlier, however, at the request of the parties, the main Appeal itself is heard on 19.07.2019, as there will be nothing to be considered thereafter.

3. The brief facts, relevant for the purpose of disposal of the Appeal are :

4. The decree holder filed O.S.No.132 of 1999 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Tribunal, Hyderabad against the judgment debtors, seeking their eviction from the suit schedule property. The suit came to be decreed on 13.11.2002. Challenging the said judgment and decree, Civil Revision Petition No. 5863 of 2002 was filed by the judgment debtor – Respondent No. 2 which came to be dismissed, confirming the orders of the Waqf Tribunal dated 13.11.2002, however, granting one year time for vacating the suit schedule property. As the judgment debtors failed to vacate the suit property, E.P.No.29 of 2014 was filed by the decree holder, wherein E.A. No. 19 of 2017 was filed by the claim petitioners purportedly invoking Order 21 Rule 58 and Rules 97 to 101 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure objecting for execution of the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2002, as modified by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 5863 of 2002. A counter-affidavit was filed opposing the said EA and further, an Application also came to be filed by the decree holder in E.A.No.24 of 2017 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC seeking dismissal of E.A.No.19 of 2017. The learned III Additional Chief Judge, after considering the respective claims and counter-claims of the parties, allowed E.A.No.24 of 2017, holding that the executing Court does not have jurisdiction to enquire into and decide the claim of the claim petitioners whether Nawab Mahboob Alam Khan, S/o Nawab Shah Alam Khan Saheb was the Secretary of the Waqf and whether he has authority to file E.P.No.29 of 2014 as the jurisdiction to decide anything relating to the Waqf and its management exclusively vests with the Waqf Tribunal under Section 7 of the Waqf Act, 1985. Consequent on allowing E.A.No.24 of 2017, holding that the executing Court lacks jurisdiction, E.A.No.19 of 2017 was dismissed.

5. The case of the claim petitioners, in brief, as put-forth before the executing Court in E.A.No.19 of 2017 is that claim petitioner No.2/appellant No.2 was appointed as the Secretary of the Waqf institution by Resolution dated 31.01.2017 and the same was also informed to the Waqf Board on 18.02.2017 and the claim petitioners and other office bearers are alone attending to / looking after the management of the Waqf institution and the school being run by it. Mr. Mahboob Alam Khan, S/o Nawab Shah Alam Khan, taking advantage of the cause title in O.S. No. 132 of 1999, filed the E.P. purporting to represent the waqf institution though he ceased to be the Secretary of the waqf institution and thus, he has no locus standi to file the EP for execution of the decree on behalf of the waqf institution. In the Application, the details relating to various litigation pending between the claim petitioners on the one hand and the said Nawab Shah Alam Khan on the other were set out (it is not necessary for this Court to record all the other details, as, in the light of the core issue that is required to be considered, the same are irrelevant