A claim under Order XXI Rule 58 impacts only the affected share of the property in execution sales, not requiring a fresh sale for the remaining shares.

JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

Order confirming an execution sale is under challenge in this appeal by the judgment debtor.

2. In a suit for money, a compromise decree was passed on 21.08.2009. On the failure of the defendant to honour the decree, execution proceedings were initiated for sale of 7 cents of property with a residential building situated therein. The property was sold in execution on 24.07.2023.

3. The judgment debtor filed E.A.No.391 of 2023 under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to set aside the sale. On 18.01.2025, the application was dismissed for default. The wife of the judgment debtor had filed an application as E.A.No.326 of 2023 under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming one-half right over the property. On 25.06.2025, the application was allowed.

4. This was followed by confirmation of the sale on

11.07.2025, subject to the order on E.A.No.326 of 2023. The court directed issuance of sale certificate. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, as per the order dated 25.06.2025, the sale held on 24.07.2023 was set aside. Hence there should have been a fresh proclamation for sale and a fresh sale, it is argued.

7. As we have noticed, the entire property was sold on 24.07.2023. The claim petition by the wife of the judgment debtor (E.A.No.326 of 2023) under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, related to one-half undivided share over the property. The claim petition was allowed as unopposed. Order XXI Rule 58 (3) reads thus:

“Upon determination of the questions referred to in sub-rule (2), the Court shall, in accordance with such determination,-

(a) allow the claim or objection and release the property from attachment either wholly or to such extent as it thinks fit;”

The consequence of the order allowing the claim affects only to one-half right over the property. Though the decree holder under the auction sale purported to purchase the entire property, by virtue of the order on E.A.No.326 of 2023, it comes out that the judgment debtor had only one-

half undivided share right over the property.

8. Thus, under the sale, the auction purchaser has obtained only one-half undivided share over the property. The allowing of the claim petition application cannot affect the right over the remaining one-half undivided share of the property sold. As per the order dated 11.07.2025, the execution court confirmed the sale only in respect of the one-half undivided share right of the judgment debtor over the property. The sale held on 24.07.2023 remains unaffected with regard to the one-half undivided share rights belonging to the judgment debtor.

9. On the above discussions, we are not able to endorse the contention of the petitioner that de novo proceedings should have commenced for sale of the one-half right of the judgment debtor over the property.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant expressed an apprehension that in execution, the appellant will be evicted from the building and the property. The apprehension is misconceived. Since only one-half right over the property has been sold, there can only be a symbolic delivery.

We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.