Objection by Stranger to Execution of Possession Decree Needs Full Inquiry: Supreme Court Remands Hyderabad Property Dispute

The first respondent obtained an ex parte decree on 18.03.2015 for specific performance of a 2001 agreement of sale for about 375 sq. yards of shops at Pathergatti, Hyderabad, and sought possession in E.P. No. 4 of 2016 (paras 2-4). Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf objected, claiming the property through a Farman of the Nizam, a 1976 trust deed, earlier litigation decided in its favour and a 2003 Waqf gazette notification (paras 3, 5-6). The Executing Court dismissed its claim petition on 29.01.2019, holding that title was not proved and that Order XXI Rule 58 CPC did not apply to an execution for possession; the Telangana High Court dismissed its appeal (paras 7-8).

The Court did not examine the competing title claims in detail (para 7). It set out the principles of Periyammal: resistance to the execution of a possession decree by any person, including a stranger, falls under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101, the decree-holder's remedy against such obstruction lies under Rule 97, and the court must hold a full inquiry into all questions of right, title and interest (para 10). Asked whether the schedules of the 1943 sale deed, the agreement of sale and the court-executed sale deed were correlated by documentary evidence, the decree-holder's side said it had proceeded on the footing that the objector bore the burden, and suggested a remand with fresh pleas and evidence (para 11). Some findings of the courts below did not conform to well-established principles of law, so they were set aside (para 12).