Supreme Court clarifies execution of decree for possession in property disputes: Periyammal vs. Rajamani (2025) INSC 329 (6 March 2025)

Table of Contents

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 6 March 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 329
Judges: J. B. Pardiwala, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

When a person wins a court case and obtains a decree, can they always be sure they will get what the decree promises? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a property dispute case. This case revolves around the difficulties decree-holders face in getting possession of property, even after winning their legal battles. The judgment explores the complexities of executing a decree for possession, especially when there are obstructions from third parties claiming possessory rights. The bench comprised of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal.

Case Background

The case originated from an agreement of sale dated 30.06.1980, between Ayyavoo Udayar (father of the appellants) and Ramanujan and Jagadeesan (respondents 3 and 4), where the latter agreed to sell a property for Rs. 67,000. Ayyavoo Udayar paid an earnest money of Rs. 10,000. The balance was to be paid by 15.11.1980, upon which the vendors would execute the sale deed.

On 15.11.1980, Ayyavoo Udayar requested the vendors via telegram to receive the balance and execute the sale deed. The vendors replied, agreeing to execute the sale deed on 20.11.1980, but failed to do so. Consequently, Ayyavoo Udayar filed O.S. No. 514 of 1983 before the Subordinate Judge, Salem, seeking specific performance of the agreement, including execution and registration of the sale deed, and delivery of physical possession.

Ayyavoo Udayar also impleaded the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (sons of the vendors’ sister) in the suit, anticipating potential obstruction from them. These respondents did not contest the suit, which proceeded ex parte against them.

Timeline:

Date	Event
30.06.1980	Agreement of sale between Ayyavoo Udayar and Ramanujan & Jagadeesan.
15.11.1980	Ayyavoo Udayar sends telegram requesting execution of sale deed.
20.11.1980	Vendors fail to execute sale deed.
1983	Ayyavoo Udayar files O.S. No. 514 for specific performance.
02.04.1986	Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem decrees the original suit.
19.03.2004	High Court dismisses the second appeal subject to deposit of Rs. 67,000.
19.04.2004	Appellants deposit Rs. 67,000.
20.01.2006	Supreme Court dismisses the special leave petition filed by the vendors.
18.04.2006	Supreme Court dismisses the review petition.
03.12.2004	R.E.P. No. 237 of 2004 dismissed by the ASJ due to pending SLP.
21.02.2006	High Court allows CRP (NPD) No. 2032 of 2005, setting aside ASJ’s order.
10.07.2007	High Court dismisses Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No. 1865 of 2007.
17.08.2007	Executing Court executes a registered sale deed in favor of the appellants.
08.01.2008	High Court allows deletion of names of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the sale deed.
25.01.2008	Rectification deed executed removing names of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
12.02.2008	Executing Court orders delivery of possession.
20.02.2008	Obstruction report filed before ASJ.
12.03.2008	Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 file application under Section 47 of CPC (R.E.A. 163 of 2011).
18.10.2008	Tehsildar orders inclusion of respondent Nos. 1 and 2’s names in cultivation account.
29.10.2009	Revenue Divisional Officer denies retrospective inclusion in cultivation accounts.
25.04.2011	High Court sets aside ASJ’s order rejecting execution application.
12.08.2011	ASJ allows R.E.A. No. 163/2011.
08.11.2011	Appellants file R.E.A. No. 14 of 2012 for amendments in R.E.P. No. 237 of 2004.
10.04.2013	Appellants seek another amendment via R.E.A. No. 145 of 2013.
24.04.2015	ASJ allows execution petition, stating appellants must take legal steps.
18.12.2019	High Court rejects revision petitions, affirming ASJ orders.

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, initially decreed the suit in favor of Ayyavoo Udayar on 02.04.1986, directing the vendors to execute the sale deed within one month. The vendors appealed to the High Court, which partly allowed the appeal and modified the decree. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not participate in the appeal proceedings.

The vendors’ second appeal was dismissed by a division bench of the High Court on 19.03.2004, conditional on the appellants depositing Rs. 67,000. The appellants complied on 19.04.2004. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not participate in this appeal either.

The vendors then filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 20.01.2006. A subsequent review petition was also dismissed on 18.04.2006.

In the meantime, the appellants filed R.E.P. No. 237 of 2004 for execution of the sale deed and delivery of possession. This was dismissed on 03.12.2004, because of the pending special leave petition. The High Court allowed Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No. 2032 of 2005 on 21.02.2006, setting aside the dismissal of the execution petition, as the special leave petition had been disposed of.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to several provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) to address the issues in the case:

✓ Section 47, CPC: This section deals with questions to be determined by the Court executing the decree. It states that “all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.” This aims to prevent multiple suits regarding the same matter.
✓ Order XXI, Rule 35, CPC: This rule pertains to decrees for immovable property. It specifies that “where a decree is for the delivery of any immovable property, possession thereof shall be delivered to the party to whom it has been adjudged, or to such person as he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf, and, if necessary, by removing any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacate the property.”
✓ Order XXI, Rule 97, CPC: This rule addresses resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property. It allows the decree-holder to apply to the Court if they are resisted or obstructed in obtaining possession. Specifically, “Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction.”
✓ Order XXI, Rule 98, CPC: This rule outlines the orders that can be made after adjudication of the application under Rule 97.
✓ Order XXI, Rule 99, CPC: This rule provides a remedy for dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser to any person other than the judgment-debtor.
✓ Order XXI, Rule 100, CPC: This rule specifies the order to be passed upon application complaining of dispossession.
✓ Order XXI, Rule 101, CPC: This rule defines the questions to be determined in proceedings under Rules 97 or 99, including those relating to right, title, or interest in the property.
✓ Order XXI, Rule 103, CPC: This rule states that orders made under Rule 98 or Rule 100 have the same force as a decree.

Arguments

Submissions of the Appellants

✓ The High Court erred in passing the impugned order.
✓ No separate notice was required to be issued to the judgment debtors as the execution petition was filed within two years of the decree as per Order 21 Rule 22 of the CPC.
✓ The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were aware of the execution petition as they had appeared through their counsel in CRP No. 2032 of 2005.
✓ The application for amending the execution petition should have been allowed as per the judgments in State of Bihar & Ors. v. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti reported in (2018) 9 SCC 472 and Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344, which state that procedural rules should advance justice.
✓ There was a clear case of collusion between the vendors and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to frustrate the decree.

Submissions of the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2

✓ The decree traveled beyond the judgment.
✓ No effective proceedings were instituted by the appellants against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
✓ The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have a lawful title and have been in lawful and uninterrupted possession of the suit properties since 1967.
✓ The appellants had not instituted any suit for recovery of possession.
✓ The civil courts inherently lacked jurisdiction to decide the question of possession as the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were cultivating tenants.
✓ The original suit was for specific performance, and the respondents were not parties to the agreement.
✓ The trial court’s order directed that “the defendants do deliver possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff,” but this should be read in context with the suit for specific performance.
✓ Relied on Rajinder Kumar v. Kuldeep Singh reported in (2014) 15 SCC 529 to argue that alternative reliefs do not arise in a suit for specific performance when it is decreed as prayed for.
✓ The respondents were not a necessary party to the suit, and no relief of possession was sought against them.
✓ The appellants sought relief only against the vendors in R.E.P. 237 of 2004, and no notice was served to the respondents.
✓ The respondents were not parties to the sale deed.
✓ The respondents’ father was in possession of the suit property since 1967, and they have been in continuous possession since 1983.
✓ The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 29.10.2009 held that the respondents have been in enjoyment of the suit property for over 40 years.
✓ Relied on Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 9 to contend that the appellants could not claim possession without establishing a better title.
✓ The respondents are protected under Sections 3 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act, 1955, which bars civil courts from evicting cultivating tenants.
✓ Relied on Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash reported in (1977) 2 SCC 662 to submit that a challenge to the validity of a decree can be set up at the execution stage if the civil court lacks jurisdiction.

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions (Appellants)	Sub-Submissions (Respondents)
Validity of Execution Proceedings	✓ High Court erred in the impugned order. ✓ No separate notice needed as petition filed within two years of decree. ✓ Respondents were aware of proceedings.	✓ Decree exceeded the judgment. ✓ No effective proceedings against respondents. ✓ Respondents have lawful title and possession since 1967.
Amendment of Execution Petition	✓ Amendment should have been allowed to advance justice (State of Bihar & Ors. v. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti, Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India).	Not Applicable
Collusion and Frustration of Decree	✓ Clear collusion between vendors and respondents to frustrate decree.	Not Applicable
Jurisdiction of Civil Courts	Not Applicable	✓ Civil courts lack jurisdiction due to respondents being cultivating tenants. ✓ Relied on Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash for challenging decree validity at execution stage.
Possession and Title	Not Applicable	✓ Respondents have been in continuous possession since 1983, father since 1967. ✓ RDO order confirms enjoyment for over 40 years. ✓ Appellants must establish better title (Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma).

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

Whether the courts below committed any error in upholding the objections raised by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein against execution of the decree on the claim of being in possession of the suit property in their capacity as cultivating tenants?
Whether the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to the protection of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act, 1955 and could the Executing Court have decided the question of validity of the decree on this ground?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Issue	How the Court Dealt with It
Whether the courts below erred in upholding objections against execution based on the claim of being cultivating tenants?	The Supreme Court found that the lower courts did err. It determined that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were acting in collusion with the vendors to frustrate the decree.
Whether the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act, 1955, and could the Executing Court decide on the decree’s validity based on this?	The Court held that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not bona fide cultivating tenants and, therefore, not entitled to protection under the Act. The Executing Court should not have decided the validity of the decree on this ground.

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

Cases

Case Name	Court	Legal Point	How the Court Considered
Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, (1997) 3 SCC 697	Supreme Court of India	Procedure for resolving disputes related to execution of decree for possession.	Explained the statutory scheme of Order XXI, CPC, emphasizing that it provides a complete code for resolving disputes related to the execution of a decree for possession.
Shreenath & Anr. v. Rajesh & Ors, (1998) 4 SCC 543	Supreme Court of India	Interpretation of “any person” under Order XXI Rule 97 and scope of power of Executing Court.	Interpreted “any person” to include all persons resisting delivery of possession, even those not bound by the decree, including tenants or strangers.
Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajiv Trust and Anr., 1998 (3) SCC 723	Supreme Court of India	Rights of third parties to offer resistance or obstruction to the execution of a decree.	Observed that a third party to the decree, including a transferee pendente lite, can offer resistance, and their rights must be adjudicated under Order XXI Rule 97.
NSS Narayan Sarma & Ors. v. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd. & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 662	Supreme Court of India	Powers of executing court to deal with obstruction from any person.	Held that the legislature has vested wide powers in the executing court to deal with all issues relating to obstruction, and the court should not shirk its responsibility by skirting relevant issues.
Samir Singh and Anr. vs. Abdul Rab, (2015) 1 SCC 379	Supreme Court of India	Authority of court to adjudicate questions pertaining to right, title, or interest in the property.	Affirmed that the court has authority to adjudicate all questions pertaining to right, title, or interest in the property, including claims of strangers.
Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain, (1995) 1 SCC 6	Supreme Court of India	Treatment of application filed under Section 47 as an application under Order XXI Rule 97.	Held that an application filed under Section 47 should be treated as one under Order XXI Rule 97, and adjudication is required to be conducted under Rule 98.
C.F. Angadi v. Y.S. Hirannayya, (1972) 1 SCC 191	Supreme Court of India	Executing court cannot go behind the decree and question its correctness.	Reinforced the principle that an executing court cannot question the correctness of the decree.
Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman, (1970) 1 SCC 670	Supreme Court of India	Executing court cannot go behind the decree and question its correctness.	Reinforced the principle that an executing court cannot question the correctness of the decree.
Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, (2021) 6 SCC 418	Supreme Court of India	The benefit of Section 47 cannot be availed to conduct a retrial.	Held that Section 47 cannot be used to conduct a retrial, causing failure of realization of fruits of the decree.
Rajinder Kumar v. Kuldeep Singh, (2014) 15 SCC 529	Supreme Court of India	Alternative reliefs in case of a suit for specific performance.	Submitted that the question of alternative reliefs does not arise in case of a suit for specific performance, when it is decreed as prayed for.
Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 9	Supreme Court of India	Claim of possession by mere execution proceedings without establishing a better title.	Contended that the appellants could not have claimed possession by way of mere execution proceedings without first establishing a better title to the properties in question.
Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash, (1977) 2 SCC 662	Supreme Court of India	Challenge to the validity of a decree at the stage of execution proceedings.	Submitted that a challenge to the validity of a decree can be set up even at the stage of execution proceedings, in cases where the civil court inherently lacks jurisdiction.
State of Bihar & Ors. v. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti, (2018) 9 SCC 472	Supreme Court of India	Rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it.	It has been held in these decisions that rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it.
Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344	Supreme Court of India	Rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it.	It has been held in these decisions that rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it.

Legal Provisions

Legal Provision	Description	How the Court Considered
Section 47, CPC	Deals with questions to be determined by the Court executing the decree.	Used to analyze whether the objections raised by the respondents related to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree.
Order XXI, Rule 35, CPC	Deals with decree for immovable property and delivery of possession.	Examined in the context of delivering possession of the property to the decree-holder and removing any person bound by the decree.
Order XXI, Rule 97, CPC	Deals with resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property.	Central to the analysis of whether the respondents’ obstruction was justified and the procedure to be followed.
Order XXI, Rule 98, CPC	Deals with orders after adjudication.	Considered in the context of the orders that can be made after adjudicating the application under Rule 97.
Order XXI, Rule 99, CPC	Deals with dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser.	Considered in the context of the orders that can be made after adjudicating the application under Rule 97.
Order XXI, Rule 100, CPC	Deals with order to be passed upon application complaining of dispossession.	Considered in the context of the orders that can be made after adjudicating the application under Rule 97.
Order XXI, Rule 101, CPC	Deals with question to be determined.	Used to determine all questions relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties.
Order XXI, Rule 103, CPC	Deals with orders to be treated as decrees.	Used to determine all questions relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties.
Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act, 1955	Provides protection to cultivating tenants from eviction.	Determined whether the respondents were entitled to protection under this Act.

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem. The Court held that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were acting in collusion with the vendors to frustrate the decree and were not bona fide cultivating tenants entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act, 1955. The Court directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution of the decree in accordance with the law.

The Court emphasized that the Executing Court has wide powers to deal with all issues relating to obstruction and should not shirk its responsibility by skirting relevant issues. It also reiterated that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and question its correctness.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Executing Court has the authority and responsibility to adjudicate all questions pertaining to the right, title, or interest in the property, including claims of strangers, in order to ensure the effective execution of the decree. Furthermore, the benefit of Section 47 cannot be availed to conduct a retrial.

Concluding Remarks

This judgment provides significant clarity on the powers and responsibilities of the Executing Court in property disputes. It reinforces the principle that decrees must be effectively executed and that collusive attempts to frustrate the execution process will not be tolerated. The Supreme Court has reiterated that the executing court has wide powers to deal with all issues relating to obstruction and should not shirk its responsibility by skirting relevant issues. This judgment serves as a reminder that the legal system must ensure that decree-holders are able to enjoy the fruits of their legal victories without undue delay or obstruction.

Source: Periyammal vs. Rajamani