S.47 CPC | Co-owner Cannot Object To Execution Merely Because He Wasn't Made Party To Eviction Suit By Landlord: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a co-owner of a property cannot object to the execution of a decree simply because they were not included as a party in the eviction suit initiated by one of the co-owners. This decision underscores the limitations of a co-owner's rights in such proceedings.

The Court clarified that such an objection under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is not maintainable, as alternate legal remedies are available to the co-owner to protect their rights.

The Court differentiated between the a landlord and a co-owner. Notably, a landlord has the legal authority to lease property and enforce eviction against a tenant; whereas a co-owner merely shares ownership of the property without necessarily having the same legal control over the lease or eviction process.

A single bench of Justice Subhash Chand, explained,

“There is a material difference between the landlord and the owner with regard to the property in question. If there are more co-owners of any property and any one of the co-owner, who has received the rent from the tenant or to whom the rent had been paid would be the landlord. If in a rent eviction suit, the tenant has been evicted and the plaintiff/landlord has been directed to handover the possession of the same, the right, title or interest of co-ownership of the petitioner is not extinguished from the same.”

The above ruling was delivered in a civil miscellaneous petition filed to quash an order passed by a Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Madhupur, whereby the petitioner's application filed under Section 47 CPC in an ongoing execution proceeding was rejected.

The petitioner contended that the eviction suit, decreed in January 2015 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-IV, Deoghar, was initiated by a co-owner without including the petitioner as a party. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that this omission violated their rights as a co-owner, and thus, the objection under Section 47 CPC should have been upheld.

The Court observed in its ruling that in the eviction suit filed by the plaintiff against the tenant, the relationship of landlord and tenant was adjudicated by the trial court. After the determination of this relationship and the establishment of grounds for eviction, the suit was decreed, the Court said.

The Court further observed that the petitioner was neither the decree holder nor the judgment debtor in the eviction suit. His claim was based on being a co-owner of the property in question, against which eviction was sought by one of the co-owners/plaintiffs.

The Court said, “If after delivery of the possession to the decree holder of the property in question any right, title or interest in the very property of the petitioner being a co-owner is being prejudiced or adversely affected for the same there is alternate remedy to file application under Order XXI Rule 97 or 99 of the CPC for the right, title and interest against the another co-owner; but the very objection under Section 47 CPC against the impugned decree execution of which is pending before the learned trial court is not at all maintainable. Thus, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application under Section 47 CPC moved on behalf of the petitioner.”

Thus, the Court held that the trial court rightly rejected the application under Section 47 CPC filed by the petitioner.

The Court concluded that the trial court did not err in dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 47 CPC, and accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

Case Title: Sarita Tekriwalla vs Srawan Kumar Gutgutia and Ors

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 164

Click Here To Read Judgement