The Madhya Pradesh High Court has decisively affirmed that a person claiming independent title to property subject to a possession decree may challenge execution proceedings before dispossession, rejecting the erroneous notion that such remedies are available only after forcible eviction. This ruling reinforces the statutory framework under Order 21 Rules 97 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure as a complete and exclusive mechanism for resolving title disputes in execution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from a decree for eviction passed in favor of the original plaintiff against a tenant, later confirmed by the Supreme Court. The judgment debtor, who had claimed to have purchased a portion of the suit land, was found to have no valid title. Subsequently, the decree holder sought execution of the decree. The petitioner, Ashish Pathak, claims to have purchased a separate parcel of land - Survey No. 1126/10 - from the original owners in 2012, which the executing court now seeks to deliver to the decree holder. He asserts that this land is distinct from the property covered by the eviction decree.
Procedural History
- 2000: Suit for eviction filed by plaintiff against tenant.
- 2011: Trial Court passes decree for eviction; tenant’s claim of purchase rejected.
- 2021: Supreme Court dismisses SLP, confirming eviction decree.
- 2019: Atisha Constructions (a company linked to petitioner’s family) files objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC; rejected by Executing Court.
- 2022: First and Second Appeals against rejection dismissed.
- 2025: Executing Court issues possession warrant, citing Tehsildar’s report that land is occupied by Ashish Pathak and Atisha Constructions.
- 2025: Petitioner files MP No. 2775/2025 challenging the warrant; dismissed initially but later restored on review due to factual error.
- 2025: Petitioner files MP No. 6765/2025 challenging the fresh possession warrant, arguing that the earlier interim stay was revived.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks to set aside the possession warrant issued on 21.11.2025, arguing that the executing court erred in not requiring the decree holder to first file an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and that he has no remedy prior to dispossession.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a person claiming independent title to property subject to a possession decree must wait until after forcible dispossession to raise objections, or whether Order 21 Rule 97 CPC permits such objections to be filed before actual delivery of possession.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Order 21 Rule 97 CPC applies only when the decree holder files an application against obstruction, and that a person in possession has no statutory right to initiate such proceedings. He contended that the only remedy available to him is under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC, which operates only after dispossession. He further argued that since the objections filed by Atisha Constructions were dismissed, and he is a separate legal entity, those findings cannot bind him.
For the Respondent
The decree holder contended that the petitioner’s claim is identical to the previously rejected objections of Atisha Constructions, and that he deliberately avoided filing objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC to circumvent the execution process. It was argued that the petitioner’s purchase occurred after institution of the suit and is therefore barred by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and that his delay and collusion with the judgment debtor render his claim mala fide.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive review of the statutory scheme under Order 21 Rules 97 to 103, emphasizing that the Code provides a self-contained mechanism for resolving disputes over possession in execution proceedings. The petitioner’s assertion that Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is exclusively available to the decree holder was categorically rejected.
"The view taken by the High Court... that the only remedy available to a stranger to a decree... is to pursue the remedy under Order 21 Rule 99, was unsustainable."
The Court relied on the binding precedent in Asgar v. Mohan Varma (2020) 16 SCC 230, which held that a stranger to the decree has a statutory right to file objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC prior to dispossession. The Court further cited Shreenath v. Rajesh (1998) 4 SCC 543, affirming that the phrase "any person" in Rule 97 includes third parties claiming independent title, even if not bound by the decree.
The Court emphasized that Order 21 Rule 101 CPC invests the executing court with plenary jurisdiction to adjudicate all questions of title, interest, or possession arising in execution, and that such adjudication bars a separate suit. The petitioner’s argument that he had no remedy before dispossession was deemed a fundamental misreading of the statutory scheme.
"The remedy under Rule 99 is available when a person... is already dispossessed. Rule 97 provides the remedy prior to dispossession."
The Court also noted that the petitioner had not filed any application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC despite having ample opportunity, and that his claim of distinct ownership was not substantiated by any sale deed predating the suit. The Executing Court’s finding that the petitioner’s possession was subsequent to the suit and thus subject to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was upheld.
The Verdict
The petitions were dismissed. The Court held that Order 21 Rule 97 CPC provides a clear, pre-dispossession remedy to any person claiming independent title or interest in decretal property, and that the petitioner’s failure to avail this remedy precludes him from challenging execution proceedings at this stage. The Court reserved liberty for the petitioner to file objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC if he so chooses.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Objections Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC Are Not Restricted to Decree Holders
- Practitioners must now advise clients claiming independent title to file objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC immediately upon notice of execution, not after dispossession.
- Failure to file under Rule 97 may bar subsequent challenges under Rule 99 or separate suits under Section 100 CPC.
- Courts will no longer entertain writ petitions challenging possession warrants unless the objector has first exhausted the Rule 97 remedy.
Post-Suit Purchases Are Vulnerable to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act
- Any purchase of property after institution of a suit for possession is presumed to be in violation of Section 52, and courts may disregard such transfers in execution proceedings.
- Buyers must conduct due diligence on pending litigation before acquiring property subject to potential eviction.
- Sale deeds executed after the filing of a suit will be scrutinized for mala fide intent to defeat execution.
Execution Courts Must Adjudicate Title Claims Proactively
- Executing courts cannot refuse to hear objections on grounds of lack of jurisdiction; Order 21 Rule 101 mandates adjudication of all title disputes.
- Lawyers must prepare detailed affidavits and documentary evidence (sale deeds, mutation records, possession proof) when filing Rule 97 objections.
- Delay in filing objections under Rule 97 may be viewed as acquiescence, especially where the objector is closely linked to the judgment debtor.
