Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has set aside orders rejecting a Waqf trust's objection to execution of a specific performance decree for shops in Hyderabad. It held that a claim should not fail merely because the wrong rule was invoked, that a stranger's resistance falls under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC requiring a full inquiry under Rule 101, and that the burden was wrongly placed on the objector.
The first respondent obtained an ex parte specific performance decree in 2015 for shops in Hyderabad. When he sought possession in execution, the Waqf trust objected as a third party, relying on a 1949 Farman, a 1976 trust deed and earlier litigation.
The executing court rejected the objection, holding the trust had not proved title and that Order XXI Rule 58 did not apply to a possession decree. The Telangana High Court affirmed, saying the objection belonged under Rule 97.
The Key Question Before the Court
How should an executing court deal with a stranger's resistance to delivery of possession?
Substance Over the Rule Cited
The Court held that the findings did not conform to settled principles. A stranger's resistance is dealt with under Order XXI Rule 97, which requires a full inquiry under Rule 101 into title and interest, and a claim should not fail because the wrong rule was cited.
The burden was wrongly placed on the objector, and the identity of the property, shown by old revenue and municipal records, was decisive; the boundaries in a 1943 sale deed differed from the decree schedule. The respondent's counsel agreed to a remand. The Court relied on Periyammal v. V. Rajamani.
What the Court Actually Held
- Impugned judgments set aside.
- Matter remanded to the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for a fresh inquiry following Periyammal, with both sides free to file pleas and evidence.
- Merits left open; appeal allowed, no costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reinforces the full-inquiry mandate under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101.
- It prevents technical rejection of objections.
- It emphasises identity of property in execution disputes.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Objectors' Counsel
- Lead evidence on title and identity of property through revenue and municipal records.
For Decree-Holders' Counsel
- Be prepared for a full inquiry when third parties resist possession.
Key Takeaways
- Citing the wrong rule is not fatal.
- Order XXI Rule 97 requires a full inquiry.
- Burden was wrongly placed.
- Matter remanded.
Frequently Asked Questions
Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, with a full inquiry under Rule 101.
No. It remanded for a fresh inquiry with merits left open.
Periyammal v. V. Rajamani (2025).
Conclusion
The ruling ensures third-party claims in execution are decided on substance rather than technicalities.
Practical takeaway: In execution proceedings, frame and decide third-party objections under Order XXI Rule 97 with a proper inquiry.