PERIYAMMAL (DEAD THR. LRS.) AND ORS VERSUS V. RAJAMANI AND ANR. ETC SLP(C) NO. 8490-8492/2020

DATE: 06/03/2025

BENCH: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

FACTS:

Ayyavoo Udayar, the father of the appellants, entered into an agreement of sale on 30.06.1980 with Ramanujan and Jagadeesan (the vendors) for the purchase of the suit property for Rs. 67,000/-, paying an earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- at the time of agreement. The balance amount of Rs. 57,000/- was to be paid by 15.11.1980, upon which the vendors would execute the sale deed. On the stipulated date, Ayyavoo Udayar issued a telegram requesting the vendors to receive the balance amount and execute the sale deed, but the vendors failed to do so. After multiple failed settlement discussions, Ayyavoo Udayar filed O.S. No. 514 of 1983 before the Subordinate Judge, Salem, and seeking specific performance of the agreement. The suit included not only the vendors but also respondents 1 and 2, who were the sons of the vendors’ sister and had been inducted into the suit property to create an impression of their possession. The suit was decreed in favor of Ayyavoo Udayar on 02.04.1986, directing the vendors to execute the sale deed within a month. The vendors appealed, but both the single judge and the division bench of the High Court upheld the decree. The Supreme Court later dismissed the vendors’ special leave petition and review petition in 2006.

Following the dismissal, the appellants initiated execution proceedings, and on 17.08.2007, the Executing Court executed a registered sale deed in their favor. However, respondents 1 and 2, who had been deleted as vendors from the sale deed, obstructed the delivery of possession, leading to further litigation. They subsequently filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC, claiming that they were in possession and had not been given a fair chance to object. The Executing Court initially rejected their application, but the High Court remanded it for fresh consideration. The ASJ, upon reconsideration, ruled in favor of respondents 1 and 2, holding that their possession had been established and that the appellants needed to initiate separate legal proceedings for possession. The appellants then challenged this ruling in the High Court through a revision petition.

ISSUES:

The key issues for consideration in this case are: (i) whether the lower courts erred in upholding the objections raised by respondents 1 and 2 against the execution of the decree, based on their claim of being in possession of the suit property as cultivating tenants, and (ii) whether respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act, 1955, and whether the Executing Court had the authority to determine the validity of the decree on this ground. These issues are crucial in assessing whether the respondents' objections were legally sustainable and whether the decree holders' rights were improperly curtailed during execution proceedings.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Executing Court and the High Court, holding that the objections raised by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not bona fide and were intended to obstruct the execution of the decree. The Court directed that possession be handed over to the decree-holder, emphasizing that the respondents had no legitimate claim over the suit property.

The Supreme Court reasoned that under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the CPC, all disputes relating to right, title, or interest in the property must be adjudicated by the executing court itself. The respondents had failed to contest the original suit despite being aware of it, and their claims were raised only at the execution stage, indicating a lack of bona fides. Their reliance on cultivating tenant certificates obtained retrospectively, with a "no objection" from vendors who no longer had ownership rights, was deemed collusive and legally untenable. The Court found that these certificates were used as a tactic to delay and obstruct the decree’s execution rather than assert a genuine legal claim.

Additionally, the Supreme Court held that the High Court and the Executing Court had erred by focusing on procedural lapses rather than addressing the core issue—whether the respondents' resistance was legally justified. The Court clarified that execution proceedings must ensure the effective enforcement of decrees and prevent misuse of procedural technicalities to frustrate a lawful decree. Since the respondents had no substantive right over the property, their objections under Section 47 CPC were unsustainable, and the decree-holder was entitled to immediate possession.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the principle that execution proceedings should not be derailed by belated and collusive claims aimed at obstructing a legally valid decree. By invoking Order XXI, Rule 97 of the CPC, the Court reaffirmed that all disputes concerning right, title, or interest in the property must be decided within execution proceedings, rather than allowing a separate suit to delay enforcement. The respondents had been aware of the original suit and had ample opportunity to assert their alleged tenancy rights, yet they failed to do so at the appropriate stage. Their objections were raised only after the decree had attained finality, signaling an attempt to frustrate its implementation. The Court’s finding that the cultivating tenant certificates were obtained retrospectively through collusion with vendors who lost ownership had further reinforced the view that the respondents' claims were legally untenable. By rejecting these claims, the Court upheld the sanctity of the decree and ensured that execution proceedings remained a mechanism for enforcement rather than re-litigation.

Furthermore, the ruling highlights the need for executing courts to focus on the substantive merits of objections rather than procedural technicalities that could be exploited to prolong litigation. The High Court and the Executing Court had erroneously emphasized procedural lapses—such as the deletion of the respondents’ names from the sale deed—without assessing whether their claims had any legal foundation. The Supreme Court rectified this error by clarifying that possession disputes raised at the execution stage must be scrutinized for their authenticity and not be entertained if they serve merely to delay enforcement. This decision reinforces the judicial stance that execution of a decree should not be hindered by frivolous objections and affirms that once a decree attains finality, it must be implemented effectively, ensuring that decree-holders receive the relief granted by the courts without undue obstruction.