DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

The Challenge

1. Respondents 1 to 3 had filed an objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”, hereafter) in an execution application filed before the Executing Court by the appellants. It was urged, based on the case pleaded therein, that the decree put to execution was inexecutable. The Executing Court, on 19th March, 2008, allowed the objections of the respondents 1 to 3, resulting in dismissal of the execution application.

Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI Date: 2024.01.12 16:43:20 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2. A revision was carried by the appellants from the order dated 19th March, 2008 before the Revisional Court which, vide its order dated 21st February, 2009, dismissed the objection filed by the respondents 1 to 3 and directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution of the decree whilst treating such objection as non-maintainable.

3. The revisional order dated 21st February, 2009 was challenged by the respondents 1 to 3 in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution1 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (“High Court”, hereafter). The High Court, by its judgment and order dated 4th February, 2011, quashed the order passed by the Revisional Court and relegated the parties to the remedy of having their rights, in respect of the suit property, adjudicated by the appropriate forum.

4. This appeal, by special leave, registers a challenge to the said judgment and order of the High Court.

Factual Conspectus

5. Having regard to the nature and extent of controversy raised at the stage of execution, a decision on this appeal does not necessitate noting the facts triggering it and the rival contentions in great depth;

however, we propose to briefly narrate the essential facts and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties before recording our conclusions.

6. The relevant facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are noticed hereunder:

1 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15236 of 2009 a. Appellants claimed that their great-grandmother, one Khatoon Jannat Bibi, had orally gifted them a certain property (“suit property”, hereafter) on 16th August, 1988 whereafter a memorandum recording the same was also executed before the relevant tehsildar and that they were in peaceful possession of the same continuously.

b. Appellants, as plaintiffs, through their power of attorney holder, instituted a civil suit2 (“Suit”, hereafter) before the Trial Court under section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ("Specific Relief Act”, hereafter) against three defendants - a son of Khatoon Jannat Bibi named Asad Ullah Kazmi [defendant no. 1]

(“Kazmi”, hereafter), Kazmi’s son Samiullah [defendant no. 2]

and one purported caretaker, Mr. Ram Chandra Yadav [defendant no. 3] in respect of the suit property, more particularly described in the plaint. Appellants prayed for a permanent injunction against the three defendants from interfering with the appellants’ peaceful possession of the suit property.

c. Kazmi, sometime in 1990, initiated proceedings for declaration of rights before the Sub-Divisional Officer under section 229B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (“UPZA & LR Act”, hereafter); the said proceedings were, 2 Original Suit No. 58 of 1990 however, dismissed on 27th February, 1999 [4 (four) years after his death].

d. In the Suit, an application for interim injunction was filed by the appellants. The Trial Court on 31st May, 1990, allowed the application and directed Kazmi and Samiullah to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property, and directed them not to interfere with the appellants’ peaceful possession thereof.

e. Kazmi filed his written statement in the Suit on 5th December, 1990 where he inter alia contended that the Suit was barred by section 331 of the UPZA & LR Act and not maintainable before a civil court since the suit property was bhoomidhari land. It was further averred that the Suit was barre