SC Declares Order XXI Objector Owner, Sets Aside Decree

Supreme Court Declares Order XXI Objector Owner on Original Hakkupatra, Sets Aside 1999 Title Decree

Published: 26 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the legal representatives of Balakrishna, whose application under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 CPC resisting the execution of a 1999 title decree over a Bangalore site was rejected by the Executing Court and the Karnataka High Court. As he produced the original 1972 Hakkupatra while the decree holder had only a photocopy, the Court declared his heirs owners and possessors of the site and set aside the decree (paras 13, 16, 18).

Key holdings

Knowledge of a suit cannot be imputed to a person in possession who was not impleaded in it (para 11).

An order on an Order XXI Rule 97 application is appealable as a regular first appeal; Rule 101 bars a separate suit (para 12).

An original Hakkupatra left with the objector, when the decree holder's was taken back, showed a genuine, uncancelled allotment (para 13).

The decree holder's admission of the objector's RCC house and let-out shops was fatal to his trespass case (para 14).

Intermittent tax payments could not settle title once the original title document was on record (para 16).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

G.N. Kanniah Naidu sued another man in O.S. No. 2198 of 1987 for title to Site No. 261, Munnekolala New Extension, claiming a Tahsildar's Hakkupatra of 05.01.1972 (para 4). He produced only a photocopy, saying the Tahsildar had taken back the original over multiple allotments (para 5). The suit was decreed for title and possession on 08.10.1999 (para 6). In Execution Case No. 100 of 2000, Balakrishna applied under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 CPC, claiming the site under his own Hakkupatra of the same date, with a house and three let-out shops, and calling the decree fraudulent and collusive (para 7). The Executing Court and the High Court rejected his claim (para 8).

Court's Findings

The High Court wrongly faulted Balakrishna for not seeking to set the decree aside earlier: knowledge of a suit filed without impleading the person in possession cannot be imputed to him, and he learns of the decree only when it is executed against him (para 11). An application under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 is on par with a regular suit, and Rule 101 bars a separate suit, so the view that the Executing Court had limited jurisdiction was unsustainable (para 12). Balakrishna's son produced the original Hakkupatra, while the decree holder had only a photocopy, whose certified copy was not admitted in the execution inquiry (paras 9, 13, 15). As the Tahsildar took back the decree holder's original over multiple allotments but left Balakrishna's with him, the only inference was that Balakrishna's allotment was genuine and not cancelled (para 13). The decree holder's admission that Balakrishna had built an RCC house with three shops let to tenants was fatal to his case of a hut put up by the defendant (para 14). Sporadic tax payments indicate possession at best, not title (para 16).

Legal Principle

An application under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 CPC is on par with a regular suit, and Rule 101 bars a separate suit. A person in possession who was not a party to the suit cannot be faulted for resisting only at execution, and tax payments show possession at best, not title (paras 11-12, 16).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The ruling shows how far an obstruction inquiry under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 CPC can reach: the Court declared the objector's heirs owners and set aside the very decree under execution (para 18). A person in possession who was never made a party to the suit learns of the decree only when it is executed, cannot be blamed for not challenging it earlier, and must prove his title in the execution inquiry itself, since Rule 101 bars a separate suit (paras 11-12). The original grant decided the case; a photocopy and sporadic tax receipts did not (paras 13, 16). For another ruling on obstruction to the execution of decrees, see Periyammal v. V. Rajamani.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Shreenath and another vs. Rajesh and others (1998) 4 SCC 543
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 12
An application under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 CPC is on par with a regular suit, which is why an order on it is appealable as a regular first appeal. Cited to hold that the High Court's view that the Executing Court had only a limited jurisdiction to examine the objector's claim reflected non-application of mind to the scheme of these Rules.
N.S.S. Narayana Sarma and others vs. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd. and others (2002) 1 SCC 662
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 12
An application under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 CPC is on par with a regular suit, which is why an order on it is appealable as a regular first appeal. Cited to hold that the High Court's view that the Executing Court had only a limited jurisdiction to examine the objector's claim reflected non-application of mind to the scheme of these Rules.