Possessory rights must be substantiated by evidence for a third party to obstruct execution of a decree under Order XXI Rule 97.

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam in an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908.

2. The appellant, a third party, resisted the execution of a decree passed in RCP No.118 of 2021 before the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. The plea raised on behalf of the appellant was that the execution of a decree in RCP No.118 of 2021 cannot be effected because the appellant has a possessory right over the building in question. It is contended that the appellant and his sister, who is the wife of the Decree Holder, were co-owners with respect of the property comprised of 5.580 cents in Survey No.35/2-B and 4.420 cents comprised in Survey No.32/2-C of Edappally South Village together with a two storied residential building. Thereafter, the appellant had executed a registered Power of Attorney as 258/2001 of SRO Edappally and the property was sold for a total consideration of ₹16,75,000/- and the appellant was entitled for half of the sale consideration, that is; ₹8,37,500/-. The sister of the appellant and her husband convinced him that they will assign the decree schedule building along with the land appurtenant to his name. Considering the said fact, in order to effect transfer of the amount, which was to be paid to him as early as in 2005, the appellant executed a settlement deed No.1424/2015 of SRO, Palakkad with respect to the property situated at Kumarampuram, Palakkad District. Since the appellant/petitioner had got an independent possessory right over the premises, the Judgment Debtors in the RCP are totally strangers. The claim was resisted by the Decree Holder by contending that the decree passed in the Rent Control Proceedings was after the due process of law and that the tenant who was put in possession by virtue of an agreement of lease dated 11.01.2016 was required to be evicted by due process of law.

3. On behalf of the petitioner/appellant, Exts.A1 to A24(a) documents were produced and on behalf of the Decree Holder, Exts.B1 to B20 documents were produced.

4. On an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidences, the executing court came to the conclusion that the application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC was not maintainable inasmuch as no document evidencing the title of the appellant herein/petitioner was produced by him. As regards the possession also, the executing court came into conclusion that based on Ext.B9 commission report in O.S. No.377 of 2021, the Judgment Debtors in the Rent Control Proceedings were in possession of the decree schedule property. Thus, the trial court concluded that the petitioner/appellant herein was not entitled to any relief sought for and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved, the claim petitioner preferred A.S. No.43 of 2024 before the Additional District and Sessions Court – VII, Ernakulam and by judgment dated

09.09.2025, the appeal was dismissed and hence, the present appeal.

5. This Court, on 17.11.2025 granted an ad-

interim order of stay in order to enable the parties to work out an amicable settlement in the matter. This was done especially considering the fact that the appellant and the 1^st respondent/Decree Holder were relatives. Though after several rounds of discussions, no solution could be found out between the parties. Hence, the matter was taken up for consideration.

6. Heard Sri.Saji Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.P. Martin Jose, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

7. On considering the submissions raised across the Bar, this Court finds that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant f