Kamal Vishwanath Jadhav v. Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory Thr its Partner
Discusses CPC Order 21 Rule 97, third-party rights in execution, and principles of evidence, impacting property law and procedure.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:31448
Decision Date: 17-11-2025
List of Laws
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; General Principles of Law
- The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The judgment extensively discusses Order 21, Rule 97 of the CPC, concerning resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property. The court emphasizes that a third party obstructing the decree's execution, who claims an independent right, must have their claim adjudicated under this rule. The significance lies in clarifying that executing courts must address these claims, preventing multiplicity of suits. This aligns with the precedent set in Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Trust, which the judgment cites. The practical implication is that executing courts cannot summarily dismiss such objections but must frame issues and allow evidence. The key takeaway is the mandatory adjudication of third-party claims in execution proceedings. The judgment also refers to Order 21, Rule 97(2) of the CPC, highlighting that the executing court can decide whether the resistor or obstructor is a person bound by the decree and refuses to vacate the property. This provision empowers the executing court to adjudicate on the rights of the parties involved in the execution proceedings. The court notes that the adjudication mentioned therein need not necessarily involve a detailed enquiry or collection of evidence, and the court can make the adjudication on admitted facts or even on the averments made by the resister. Order 21, Rule 98 is mentioned, which deals with orders after adjudication. The court refers to the determination of questions referred to in Rule 101 and the subsequent orders the court shall make in accordance with such determination. Order 21, Rule 99, which addresses dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser, is also discussed. The court notes that where any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed of immovable property, they may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession, and the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions contained therein. Order 21, Rule 100 is mentioned, which deals with the order to be passed upon application complaining of dispossession. The court refers to the determination of the questions referred to in Rule 101 and the subsequent orders the court shall make in accordance with such determination. Order 21, Rule 101 of the CPC is central to the judgment, as it mandates the determination of all questions (including those relating to right, title, or interest in the property) arising between the parties to the proceeding. The court emphasizes that these questions must be decided by the executing court itself, not through a separate suit. This interpretation reinforces the legislative intent to consolidate adjudication within the execution proceedings, aligning with the Supreme Court's observations in Brahmdeo Chaudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal. The practical implication is a streamlined process for resolving disputes related to property under execution, reducing delays and preventing parallel litigation. The key takeaway is the executing court's comprehensive jurisdiction to decide all relevant questions. Order 21, Rule 103 is also discussed, which states that orders are to be treated as decrees. The court notes that where any application has been adjudicated upon under rule 98 or rule 100, the order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to an appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. The judgment also touches upon Order 21, Rule 90, in the context of setting aside a sale. The court notes that the question of saleable interest does not come within the ambit of Order 21 Rule 90 and as such the judgment-debtor had no locus standing to apply to the court for setting aside the sale.
- The Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The judgment refers to the "basic principle of Evidence Act, more particularly provisions of Chapter VII of the Indian Evidence Act" in the context of whether the executing court's finding, based only on oral arguments without allowing evidence or framing issues, militates against this principle. While no specific sections are analyzed, the court implies that denying the appellant the opportunity to present evidence regarding the property's nature (self-acquired vs. joint family) potentially violates evidentiary principles. The significance lies in underscoring the importance of adhering to the Evidence Act even in execution proceedings. The practical implication is that executing courts must allow parties to adduce relevant evidence before making factual determinations. The key takeaway is the applicability of the Evidence Act's principles in execution matters.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment implicitly discusses the principle of res judicata when the learned Senior counsel submits that the courts below having brushed aside the objection raised, without framing issues and permitting the appellant to lead evidence and having rendered a finding that the suit property is owned by JD No. 1, great prejudice is caused to the appellant as the finding would operates as res-judicata in any suit that may be filed to demonstrate her right qua the auctioned property. The court also discusses Hindu Law, particularly the presumption of a joint family and the burden of proving that a property is joint family property. The court refers to the principle that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The court also refers to the principle that the one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property.
🔒 For Members Only