The Supreme Court has ruled that citing the wrong provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), cannot by itself justify rejecting a third party’s objection to the execution of a possession decree. A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N. V. Anjaria set aside the orders of the executing court and the Telangana High Court, directing a fresh inquiry into the competing claims over the disputed property.
Background
The dispute arose from a 2012 suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell property in Rikabgunj, Pathergatti, Hyderabad. The suit was decreed ex parte on March 18, 2015, allowing the decree-holder to obtain a registered sale deed and possession of the property.
During execution proceedings, Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf filed an objection claiming independent rights over the property. The trust relied on historical records and its claim that the land formed part of a charitable Waqf.
On January 29, 2019, the executing court rejected the objection, including on the ground that the application under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC was inappropriate because the execution petition concerned delivery of possession rather than attachment of property. The Telangana High Court subsequently upheld the rejection.
Before the Supreme Court, the trust argued that its objection should not have been dismissed merely because it invoked the wrong procedural provision. The Court considered the principles laid down in Periyammal (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others v. V. Rajamani and Another (2025), concerning objections raised by third parties during execution proceedings.
The Bench emphasised that courts must examine the substance of an objection when a person who is not bound by the decree claims an independent right, title or interest in the property.
The Court observed:
“Since the enquiry has not been conducted as laid down by this Court in the relied-upon Judgment, it is argued that the impugned Judgment be set aside and the matter be referred to the Executing Court for disposal afresh.”
The Court also identified concerns regarding the evidence used to establish the identity of the disputed property and the burden placed on the third-party objector.
It further held that the competing claims required proper examination under the applicable principles governing execution proceedings, rather than rejection without the required inquiry.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the challenged judgments and remanded the matter to the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for fresh consideration.
The Court directed:
“The Executing Court is directed to allow further or fresh pleas on behalf of both parties, conduct a fresh inquiry in light of the decision referred to above, and dispose of the matter afresh.”
The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.
