CPC - Obstructor's Claims Over Decree Property Must Be Determined In Execution Proceedings And Not In Separate Suit : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India on Monday held that claims raised by an obstructor including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property in execution proceedings filed by the decree holder against the judgment debtor, has to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court in the execution proceedings itself.

The Bench has held that in accordance with Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 with respect to resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property have to be determined by the Court dealing with the application and for that a separate suit is not required to be filed.

A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna has made the observations while delivering its judgement in a civil appeal filed by Bangalore Development Authority challenging the Karnataka High Court's order dismissing writ petitions filed by Bangalore Development Authority against the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing its applications under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in Execution Case filed by the decree holder (R1) against the judgment debtor (R2)

"Therefore, as per Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, all questions including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Order XXI rule 97 or rule 99 CPC and relevant to the adjudication of the application shall have to be determined by the Court dealing with the application. For that a separate suit is not required to be filed. Order XXI Rule 97 is with respect to resistance/obstruction to possession of immovable property," the judgement authored by Justice MR Shah reads.

The Bench noted that it is the specific case of the BDA that pursuant to the acquisition of the land in question, the BDA has become the absolute owner and the said land is vested in the BDA. Further possession was already taken over by the BDA and the land was handed over to the Engineering Section.

The Bench has therefore held that the applications submitted by BDA for impleadment in the execution proceedings and the obstruction against handing over the possession to the decree holder were required to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court by impleading the BDA as a party to the execution proceedings.

It has further been observed that even though a substantive suit filed by the BDA against the decree holder and the judgment debtor to declare the lease agreement as null and void is pending, irrespective of the same, considering Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, the question relating to right, title or interest of the BDA in the suit property was required to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court.

The Bench has passed the order and issued the directions in consideration of the following aspects:

• The BDA is claiming right, title or interest in the land in question being acquired under the provisions of the 1976 Act.
• The lease agreement between the decree holder and the judgment debtor is subsequent to the acquisition of the suit land.
• The case of BDA is that such a transaction is null and void once the suit land for which the lease agreement was executed was acquired under the provisions of the 1976 Act.
• The award was also declared and a notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act evidencing taking over possession of the land by BDA was also published.

"Therefore, when BDA which has submitted the obstruction/objection in the execution proceedings filed by the decree holder against the judgment debtor with respect to suit land which was acquired by BDA and when the BDA claims right, title or interest in the suit property, such obstruction was required to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court while considering the application/obstruction under Order XXI Rule 97 or Rule 99 CPC," the Bench has held.

While allowing BDA's appeal, the Bench has set aside the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the applications filed by the BDA for impleadment in the execution proceedings and/ dismissing the obstruction application.

The Apex Court has also set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 21.03.2016 dismissing the writ petitions filed BDA and upholding order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the Executing Court

The Bench directed the Executing Court to implead the BDA in the execution petition and thereafter adjudicate upon the obstruction or objection raised by BDA including the question relating to right, title or interest claimed by BDA in the suit land on the basis of the acquisition of the suit property acquired under the provisions of the 1976 Act. The Bench has granted a time period of six months for completion of the same.

Case Title: Bangalore Development Authority vs N. Nanjappa and another

Citation : LL 2021 SC 712

Click here to read/download the judgment