Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Any person includes actual owner or third parties claiming independent rights - Order 21 Rule 97 CPC allows resistance or objections to dispossession by any person, which explicitly encompasses actual owners, third-party claimants, or strangers with independent rights. Several judgments clarify that any person is broadly interpreted to include actual owners and third parties asserting their rights before dispossession occurs ["Charanjeet Kaur vs Shalini Chaudhary - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Prakash Solanki VS Tek Singh - Rajasthan"], ["Prakash Solanki VS Tek Singh - Rajasthan"].
Order 21 Rule 99 CPC is limited to persons who have been dispossessed - Rule 99 applies only when a person has been dispossessed of immovable property by the decree-holder or purchaser. It does not extend to persons not in actual physical possession at the time of dispossession. The word dispossessed has been narrowly construed to mean actual ouster from possession ["Charanjeet Kaur vs Shalini Chaudhary - Punjab and Haryana"], ["State Prevention For Cruelty to Animal, Bihar, Patna VS Amar Paswan - Patna"], ["Mayadhar Behera (Since Dead), Dilip Kumar Behera vs Golakh Chandra Pati - Orissa"].
Order 21 Rules 97 and 99 serve as pre-dispossession and post-dispossession remedies respectively - Rule 97 provides a remedy prior to dispossession, allowing persons in actual possession or claiming rights to object and have their rights adjudicated before actual dispossession. Rule 99 is a remedy after dispossession, for persons claiming that their dispossession was illegal and seeking restoration of possession ["Sugunanda Vilasom Society No. 130/1985 VS Abhilash Berly - Kerala"], ["Thoreyamma, W/O Late Sri K. Hutchappa @ Hutchaiah vs K.N. Chandraiah, S/O Sri Narayanaswamy - Karnataka"], ["Shakuntala Gupta vs Man Mohan Gupta - Delhi"].
Right to claim under Order 21 Rule 97 is not restricted to decree holders - The provisions enable any person resisting dispossession, including actual owners or third parties with independent rights, to file objections and seek adjudication of their rights. This includes persons claiming possession or rights contrary to the decree or auction purchaser ["Prakash Solanki VS Tek Singh - Rajasthan"], ["Prakash Solanki VS Tek Singh - Rajasthan"], ["A. Indra Kumari VS Uday Kumar - Karnataka"].
Order 21 Rules 101 and 102 clarify that all questions of right, title, or interest must be determined by the court during execution proceedings - All disputes regarding ownership or rights must be adjudicated within the execution process, not through separate suits. If a person claims an independent right, they can raise objections under Rules 97 or 99, which the court must decide ["Charanjeet Kaur vs Shalini Chaudhary - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Sugunanda Vilasom Society No. 130/1985 VS Abhilash Berly - Kerala"], ["VEERABATHINI JANARDHAN VS TERALA RAJAIAH (SINCE DIED) PER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE - Andhra Pradesh"].
The scope of dispossession and resistance includes actual physical ouster and objections prior to physical dispossession - Resistance under Rule 97 can be offered by any person, including actual owners or third parties, before actual dispossession occurs. The process involves adjudicating such objections within the execution proceedings ["Shakuntala Gupta vs Man Mohan Gupta - Delhi"], ["Prakash Solanki VS Tek Singh - Rajasthan"], ["Mayadhar Behera (Since Dead), Dilip Kumar Behera vs Golakh Chandra Pati - Orissa"].
Order 21 Rule 97 CPC explicitly allows any person — including actual owners and third parties with independent rights — to file objections resisting dispossession during execution proceedings. Rule 99 CPC applies only after actual dispossession has occurred. The legal interpretation clarifies that any person is broadly construed to include actual owners, and the remedies under Rules 97 and 99 serve different stages: prior to and after dispossession. The provisions emphasize that disputes regarding ownership or rights must be adjudicated within the execution process itself, not through separate suits.
References:- ["Charanjeet Kaur vs Shalini Chaudhary - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Sugunanda Vilasom Society No. 130/1985 VS Abhilash Berly - Kerala"]- ["Prakash Solanki VS Tek Singh - Rajasthan"]- ["Prakash Solanki VS Tek Singh - Rajasthan"]- ["A. Indra Kumari VS Uday Kumar - Karnataka"]- ["Shakuntala Gupta vs Man Mohan Gupta - Delhi"]- ["Mayadhar Behera (Since Dead), Dilip Kumar Behera vs Golakh Chandra Pati - Orissa"]- ["VEERABATHINI JANARDHAN VS TERALA RAJAIAH (SINCE DIED) PER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE - Andhra Pradesh"]
Disclaimer: This article provides general information on legal interpretations and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
In the complex world of executing civil decrees in India, disputes over property possession often arise involving third parties. A common question that surfaces is: under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC, any other person includes actual owner? This query strikes at the heart of how the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) protects rights during execution proceedings.
Order 21 of the CPC governs the execution of decrees, and Rules 97 to 103 form a complete code for resolving resistance or obstruction to possession. If you're a property owner, decree holder, or third party facing dispossession, understanding this provision can be crucial. This post delves into judicial interpretations, key rights, distinctions, and limitations, drawing from landmark cases.
Order 21 Rule 99 CPC addresses situations where a person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the decree-holder or auction purchaser. It states: Where any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed of immovable property... he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession.
The executing court must then adjudicate the applicant's claim, determining rights to possession. This rule ensures summary resolution without a fresh suit, promoting efficiency in execution.
Yes, judicial consensus holds that the phrase any person other than the judgment-debtor under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC is deliberately broad, encompassing even the actual owner claiming independent title. The Supreme Court in Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajiv Trust and Others clarified: any person includes even strangers and those claiming independent rights in the property Shamsher Singh VS Lt. Col. Nahar Singh (d) Thr. Lrs. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2076.
This wide scope extends to owners not bound by the decree. In Brahmdeo Chaudhary vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, the Court emphasized that such persons can approach the executing court to protect their rights Shamsher Singh VS Lt. Col. Nahar Singh (d) Thr. Lrs. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2076. Similarly, Shreenath & Anr. vs. Rajesh & Ors. affirmed that third parties, including actual owners, can file under Rule 99 U. P. S. R. T. C. VS Pradeep Kumar - 2016 4 Supreme 624.
Key points from these interpretations:- The term is intended to be wide enough to include the actual owner claiming independent rights Shamsher Singh VS Lt. Col. Nahar Singh (d) Thr. Lrs. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2076Cellular Operators Association of India VS Telecom Regulatory Authority of India - 2016 3 Supreme 417.- Applications can be filed even if not physically dispossessed at filing time, especially if anticipating obstruction Shamsher Singh VS Lt. Col. Nahar Singh (d) Thr. Lrs. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2076State of Punjab VS Shreyans Indus Ltd. Etc. - 2016 2 Supreme 408.- Rules 97-103 provide a complete code for resolving disputes related to execution, including rights of third parties and owners Shamsher Singh VS Lt. Col. Nahar Singh (d) Thr. Lrs. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2076U. P. S. R. T. C. VS Pradeep Kumar - 2016 4 Supreme 624.
Actual owners with independent rights are not sidelined in execution. They can invoke Rule 99 for restoration of possession post-dispossession. The law recognizes proactive claims: owners with independent rights can approach the executing court under Order 21 Rule 97 or Rule 99 to protect their possession or claim their rights Shamsher Singh VS Lt. Col. Nahar Singh (d) Thr. Lrs. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2076.
Supporting this, *Order 21 Rule 97 CPC was preferred... executing Court... has the authority to adjudicate all the questions pertaining to right, title or interest in property arising between the parties - It also includes claim of a stranger who apprehends dispossession or has already been dispossessed Rishi Janghel S/o Late Kriparam Janghel VS Chandrabhan Kriplani S/o Shri Jiyomal Kriplani - 2018 Supreme(Chh) 141. Post-1976 amendment, such inquiries are handled entirely by the executing court, with orders having decree-like force under Rule 103 Rishi Janghel S/o Late Kriparam Janghel VS Chandrabhan Kriplani S/o Shri Jiyomal Kriplani - 2018 Supreme(Chh) 141.
Even bona fide purchasers unrelated to the judgment-debtor can resist execution. In one case, the Supreme Court held that a bona fide property purchaser not tracing title from the judgment-debtor, was entitled to objections under Rules 97 and 101 Tahir V. Isani VS Madan Waman Chodankar (Since Deceased) Now through His Legal Representatives - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1280.
Understanding the interplay is vital:- Rule 97: Applies to resistance or obstruction to delivery of possession. Order 21 Rule 97 applies when resistance or obstruction is made by a person resisting delivery of possession Shamsher Singh VS Lt. Col. Nahar Singh (d) Thr. Lrs. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2076.- Rule 99: For those dispossessed by the decree-holder or purchaser, seeking restoration. Rule 99 applies when a person claims to have been dispossessed or seeks restoration after dispossession Shamsher Singh VS Lt. Col. Nahar Singh (d) Thr. Lrs. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2076.
Owners may file under either, depending on circumstances: resisting beforehand (Rule 97) or post-dispossession (Rule 99) Shamsher Singh VS Lt. Col. Nahar Singh (d) Thr. Lrs. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2076U. P. S. R. T. C. VS Pradeep Kumar - 2016 4 Supreme 624. However, nuances exist—Rule 99 requires actual dispossession: It is true that Rule 99 of Order 21 is not available to any person until he is dispossessed of immovable property by the decree-holder Danesh Singh VS Har Pyari (Dead) Thr. Lrs. - 2025 Supreme(SC) 2050.
While broad, the provision isn't unlimited. Courts scrutinize claims for genuineness:- Possession Requirement: A person not in possession typically cannot maintain an action under Rule 97: A person not in possession cannot maintain an action under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code Shantabai Marotrao Ingale VS Muktiram Manikrao Rasal - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 2253.- Frivolous Claims: Must be supported by evidence; false claims are dismissed Shamsher Singh VS Lt. Col. Nahar Singh (d) Thr. Lrs. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2076.- Pendente Lite Purchasers: Section 52 TPA and Rule 102 CPC limit rights: a purchaser pendente lite does not acquire any title... if such a purchaser makes any obstruction... an enquiry is not contemplated under Order 21, Rule 99 Prakash Gobindram Ahuja VS Ganesh Pandharinath Dhonde - 2013 Supreme(Bom) 793.- Strangers Without Locus: Third parties without dispossession or direct impact lack standing, as in cases where petitioners were extremely strangers in suit K. Parasuraman VS P. Srinivasa Raghavan - 2014 Supreme(Ker) 836.
Additionally, for sub-tenants or licensees, claims fail if contradicted by concurrent findings of possession by judgment-debtors RAMACHANDRA VS KEMPAMMA - 2002 Supreme(Kar) 456. Rule 102 bars certain transferees from relying on Rules 98/100 if tracing title from the judgment-debtor Tahir V. Isani VS Madan Waman Chodankar (Since Deceased) Now through His Legal Representatives - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1280.
For actual owners facing execution:1. File promptly under Rule 97/99 with evidence of title/possession.2. Leverage the executing court's wide adjudication powers under Rules 97-103.3. Anticipate examination of claim merits—weak cases risk dismissal.
Decree-holders should note third-party rights to avoid prolonged litigation. Recent cases reinforce that even strangers apprehending dispossession can seek protection Rishi Janghel S/o Late Kriparam Janghel VS Chandrabhan Kriplani S/o Shri Jiyomal Kriplani - 2018 Supreme(Chh) 141.
Under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC, any other person generally includes the actual owner with independent rights, allowing applications for possession restoration. This broad interpretation, upheld in Silverline ForumShamsher Singh VS Lt. Col. Nahar Singh (d) Thr. Lrs. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2076 and others, ensures fair adjudication in execution. However, actual dispossession (for Rule 99) and genuine claims are prerequisites, with exceptions for non-possessors or pendente lite buyers.
Key Takeaways:- Broad inclusion of owners/third parties Shamsher Singh VS Lt. Col. Nahar Singh (d) Thr. Lrs. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2076U. P. S. R. T. C. VS Pradeep Kumar - 2016 4 Supreme 624.- Complete code via Rules 97-103; no separate suit needed.- Limitations: Possession, genuineness, and Rule 102 applicability.
Stay informed on CPC execution to safeguard your property rights. For tailored guidance, reach out to a legal expert.
References:- Supreme Court and High Court judgments as cited (e.g., Shamsher Singh VS Lt. Col. Nahar Singh (d) Thr. Lrs. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2076, U. P. S. R. T. C. VS Pradeep Kumar - 2016 4 Supreme 624, Shantabai Marotrao Ingale VS Muktiram Manikrao Rasal - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 2253).
#Order21Rule99, #CPCExecution, #PropertyRights
Order XXI Rule 99 CPC reads as under: - 99. Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser. ... The Court stated; "It is true that Rule 99 of Order 21 is not available to any person until he is dispossessed of immovable property by the decree-holder. ... Aforesaid Rule 100 CPC is to be read in the context of Rules 99 and 101 CPC. ... In other word....
Order 21 Rule 58 - Maintainability of petition after completion of sale - Order 21 Rule 97 - Remedy of 3rd ... party in possession - [Order 21 Rule 58, Order 21 Rule 97] Fact of the Case: The appellant ... Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Order 21 Rule 58 and Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, emphasizing ... Reading proviso (a) to Order #HL_START....
In none of the judgments referred to supra the Apex Court has observed that a person not in possession can still maintain an application under Order XXI, Rule 97 and 99 of Code of Civil Procedure. 21. ... The learned counsel submits that Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not restrict the objection to be raised by the person in actual physical possession, but even a ....
With respect the High Court has totally ignored the scheme of Order 21, Rule 97 in this connection by taking the view that only remedy of such stranger to the decree lies under Order 21, Rule 99 and he has no locus standi to get adjudication of his claim prior to the actual delivery of possession to ... XXI Rule 97 and 99 and other sections of CPC are not entertainable. ... Order....
21 Rule 99 CPC and pray for restoration of possession. The High Court by the impugned order and judgment has taken the view that the only remedy available to a stranger to the decree who claims any independent right, title or interest in the decretal property is to go by Order 21 Rule 99.
Order 21 Rule 101 provides for the determination of necessary issues. ... Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 151 - Order 21 Rule 97 - Possession of disputed suit property - Execution ... 21 Rule 97 CPC was preferred by the decree holder executing Court without any sufficient reason has allowed the application and ... In such writ petition, this Court by an order dated 15.06.2005 observed that the executing Court ought to have enquired into the possession of the petitioners in accordan....
2 [In short “CPC”] The above impugned order was passed placing reliance upon the provisions contained in Order XXI Rule 102 of the CPC. ... If the said condition is fulfilled, the case falls within the mischief of Rule 102 and such applicant cannot place reliance either on Rule 98 or Rule 100 of Order 21.” ... 99. ... Rule 102 of Order 21 of ....
XXI Rule 99 CPC. ... It is true that Rule 99 of Order 21 is not available to any person until he is dispossessed of immovable property by the decree-holder. ... 21 CPC against whom such an order is made. ... The word “dispossessed” as used in Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code has been narrowly construed to be an ouster from #HL_STA....
In such writ petition, this Court by an order dated 15.06.2005 observed that the executing Court ought to have enquired into the possession of the petitioners in accordance with Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and Order 21 Rule 101 CPC and the decree of possession was thereafter stayed. ... Order 21 Rule 100 CPC deals with orders to be passed on an application complaining ....
Execution of decree -obstructor s claim ... Order 21, Rule 97 - Order ... 21 Rule 97 -Execution of decree for taking possession -protested by obstructor -contention, that he was in possession as lessee ... (ii) Whether the person claiming tenancy under the Decree Holder can maintain an application under Order 21, Rules 97 to 99 and 101 of CPC? ... Since Order 21, Rule 97 is appli....
(2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained. 5. Order 21 Rule 99 CPC reads as follows: Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser:-(1) Where any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession.
But, they themselves withdrew the application as not pressed. Certainly, the petitioners had the right to file an application to set aside the sale, invoking jurisdiction under Order 21 R.90 of the CPC and they had already availed of that opportunity. According to Order 21 R.90 of the CPC, where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the decree holder, or the purchaser, or any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregul....
Admittedly he has not filed any application under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC. It is also seen that the decree holder has not taken out any application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC seeking for removal of obstruction. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, he claimed that his obstruction has to be recorded . Even such application can be filed only when he is dispossessed of the suit property by the decree holder.
“A combined reading of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property act and Order 21, Rule 102 CPC postulates that a purchaser pendente lite does not acquire any title to the property to the detriment of the rights of other party and if such a purchaser makes any obstruction or resistance to the execution of the decree so passed, an enquiry is not contemplated under Order 21, Rule 99 or 100 CPC.” It may be useful also to quote the observations in para 4.10 of the report as under : “4.10 This in fact fortifies my conclusion that Section 52 of the TP Act provides sufficient protect....
It is the contention of the said applicant that all the rents were tendered to the landlord but the said landlord obtained a collusive decree and on the basis of the said collusive decree ousted the applicant from the suit premises through the Court bailiff. It is submitted that the said proposed applicant is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. It is the case of the said applicant that he has been lawfully inducted as a subtenant and in the event the Imambara estate has accepted the rent from Omar directly the said decree for eviction against the tenant is not enforceable as agains....
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
