Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment dated 16.04.2014passed by High Court of Delhi,preferred by appellant company under Article 227 ofConstitution of India, against the order dated 13.01.2012 passedin Execution Petition, vide which, the ExecutingCourt entertained the objections filed by appellant company andproceeded to frame issues with a direction to the parties to leadevidence on those issues.
Brief Facts:
The Trial Court issued an order prohibiting the defendant from restricting the plaintiff's enjoyment of the right of passage from the main door on the ground floor to the terrace and from raising additional construction in response to a lawsuit filed by the late Shri N.D. Mishra. N.D. Mishra passed away while the lawsuit was pending, thus the Trial Court approved the application for impleadment, and his legal heirs as well as a trust became the holders of the decree. Tenants are the target of an execution petition filed by the plaintiffs and decree holders.They subsequently discovered that a company named Shriram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd had acquired possession of the suit property straight from the renter while claiming to be a legitimate buyer of it from Mr. Yogesh Mishra (the son of Shri N.D. Mishra). The firm asserted resistance by the Plaintiffs to its possession of the Suit Property in their objections under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 CPC in the Execution Petition. The decree owners contested the application's capacity to be maintained.In addressing the objections, the Executing Court set forth the pertinent issues and instructed the parties to provide their evidence. The Executing Court's order was later overturned by the High Court, which noted that if the objections were found to be maintainable, it would amount to a new trial and that the decree holder might not be able to receive the benefits of the decree for several decades, while the appellant company would continue to have illegal possession of the suit property.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Mr. Yogesh Mishra was the sole and absolute owner of thesuit property by virtue of ‘Will dated 23.05.1998’ and samewas sold to appellant company by Mr. Yogesh Mishra being adecree holder after the decree was passed. Therefore, theappellant company is legally entitled to raise objectionsunder Order XXI Rule 97 to 101 of CPC. It was submitted that High Court erred in interpreting Order XXI Rule 102 of CPCas it is only applicable when judgment debtor has transferredthe property after the institution of suit, whereas, in theinstant case, the suit property was sold by decree holder.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant company is claiming the suit property on theanvil of ‘Will dated 23.05.1998’ which has not been proved inany court of law by leading primary evidence in terms ofSection 64 of Indian Evidence Act. It was argued that the appellant company cannot invoke proceedings underOrder XXI Rule 97 as only the ‘decree holder’or an ‘auctionpurchaser’ is entitled to make an application thereto. Theappellant company does not fall under both the categories.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated thatOrder XXI Rule 97 deals with the resistance or obstruction topossession of immovable property by ‘any person’ obtainingpossession of the property against the decree holder. It empowersthe ‘decree holder’ to make an application complaining aboutsuch resistance or obstruction.
SC further stated that Order XXI deals with the right of ‘any person’ other than thejudgment debtor who is dispossessed by holder of a decree forpossession of such property or in case where such property issold in furtherance of execution of a decree. The said provisionvests ‘any person’ with a right to make an applicationcomplaining about such dispossession of immovable property inthe manner prescribed above.
SC observed that Rule 98 and Rule 100 deal with thepower of the Court to pass appropriate orders upon anapplication preferred under Rule 97 and Rule 99 respectively. Inso far as Rule 101 is concerned, it confers jurisdiction on theCourt as well as casts an obligation to determine the questionsrelating to right, title or interest in the property, if any, arisingbetween parties on an application made by the concerned personunder Rule 97 or Rule 99 in the same proceedings foradjudication and not in a separate suit.
SC further observed that Rule 102 clarifiesthat Rule 98 and Rule 100 shall not apply in a case whereresistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for thepossession of immovable property is offered by ‘transfereependent elite’i.e., the person to whom the property is transferredby the judgment debtor after institution of the suit in which thedecree sought to be executed was passed.
SC stated that applications under Rule 97 and Rule99 are subject to Rule 101 which provides for determination ofquestions relating to disputes as to right, title or interest in theproperty arising between the parties to the proceedings or theirrepresentatives on an application made under Rule 97 or Rule99. Effectively, the said Rule does away with the requirement offiling of fresh suit for adjudication of disputes.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “in the present case, Order XXI Rule 101 has noapplicability as the appellant is neither entitled to make anapplication under Rule 97 nor Rule 99 for the reasons statedabove. Accordingly, we find no substance in the argument raisedby learned counsel for the appellant. In such circumstances,Executing Court had no occasion to frame issues and givedirection to parties to lead evidence on objections raised byappellant. By doing so, the Executing Court transgressed thescope of Order XXI Rule 97 and Rule 99. Therefore, in ourconsidered view, the High Court has rightly set aside the order ofTrial Court entertaining the objections filed by appellant underOrder XXI Rule 97 to Rule 102.”
Case Title: Sriram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust
Bench: J. Indira Banerjee and J. J.K. Maheshwari
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4649 OF 2022
Decided on: 6th July, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
