Challani Ginning And Pressing Factory vs Kamal

2026 INSC 426
Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026



Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory
...Appellant
Versus
Kamal
...Respondent

O R D E R

It is not lightly said that a litigant’s difficulties commence after
he obtains a decree. The suit filed in the year 2013 by the appellant
herein, for specific performance was decreed directing refund of an
amount of Rs.1,45,00,000/- with 8% interest from the date of filing of
suit; the prayer for specific performance having been declined. The
refund was not made as directed, and the appellant filed an
execution petition wherein the suit property was attached in the
year 2017. The objections filed by the Judgment Debtor (JD) and his
assignees subsequent to the attachment, obviously to frustrate the
recovery, were declined.
Signature Not Verified
2. The appellant was then faced with an objection filed by the
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2026.04.28
17:31:25 IST
Reason:
mother of the judgment debtor claiming the property to be a joint
Page 1 of 8
Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026

rd
family property in which she has 1/3 share along with the
judgment debtor and his brother. The respondent herein, the
objector, claimed that she came to know of the suit and the
execution proceedings only on 06.02.2025 when certain persons
came to the property in pursuance to the execution proceedings.
Despite the knowledge having been pinned to the year 2025, she
asserted that she was always in possession of the property since her
sons had moved to Bombay. The Execution Court and the First
Appellate Court found the objection to be not maintainable. In
second appeal, the High Court reversed the order passed under
Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against which
the present appeal is filed.
3. The facts leading to the execution proceedings have to be
noticed briefly. The suit filed in the year 2013 was decreed on
24.07.2017, the judgment in which is produced as Annexure RJ-1, in
st
the rejoinder filed by the appellant. The 1 defendant was the son of
nd
the respondent and the 2 defendant, a Private Limited Company
st
in which the 1 defendant and the present objector were Directors.
The plaintiff, the appellant herein, sought for specific performance
of the suit property based on an agreement of 2011 wherein part
consideration of Rs.1,45,00,000/- was paid by cheque to the account
Page 2 of 8
Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026

nd
of the 2 defendant, out of the total sale consideration of
st
Rs.1,51,00,000/-. The 1 defendant took up a contention that there
was no sale intended and the agreement was a security for the loan
nd
availed by the 2 defendant company. It was also contended that
st
the loan was arranged through the brother of the 1 defendant who
was close to the partners of the appellant. It was found that the suit
property was mortgaged to the IDBI bank, which mortgage was
known to the plaintiff, recited in the sale agreement, which enables
the plaintiff only to the right of subrogation especially when the loan
for which the mortgage was created had not been repaid and the
bank had not been made a party to the suit. The prayer for specific
performance was declined but the recovery of the amounts paid was
directed from JD-1, the son of the respondent herein. The amounts
having not been paid, the decree holder filed an execution petition
on 08.08.2017 in which an attachment order was passed on
21.09.2017 which was affixed in a conspicuous part of the suit
property, which the objector claimed to have been in her
possession for long.
4. The auction having been first carried out, the confirmation of
sale was challenged by one Vienna Multiventure who was the
assignee from JD-1; the assignment itself being after the attachment.
Page 3 of 8
Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026

The said assignee also mortgaged the property to the HDFC bank.
Both the assignee and the HDFC bank filed separate objections
which were declined by the Executing Court, confirmed up to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The auction sale though was set aside on
an objection by JD-1 after which again a sale proclamation was
made and the sale confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser who
was also the decree holder, by order dated 04.01.2025. A further
objection by JD-1 by way of two writ petitions was dismissed by the
High Court imposing a cost of Rs.75,000/-. The earlier attempts to
frustrate the recovery of money by sale of the property having
failed, the appellant contends the present objections were taken up
by the mother.
5. The High Court in the second appeal framed a question of law
as to whether the Executing Court erred in not framing issues and
permitting the appellant/objector to lead evidence to prove her
case that the auction property is a joint family property. Relying on
various decisions of this Court, the impugned order rightly found
Rule 97, 98, 99 and 101 of Order XXI having laid down a complete
code for resolving all disputes pertaining to execution, on an
objection being filed by a third party interested in the suit property,
without resorting to a separate suit, as brought about by the
Page 4 of 8
Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026

amendment to the Civil Procedure Code in the year 1976. The High
rd
Court found that the claim of 1/3 share in the joint family properties
was natural insofar as JD-1 himself having inherited his father’s
business and the purchase of the subject property having been
made, possibly from the nucleus of the joint family business, which
had to be proved. It was also found that merely because two other
properties owned by the objector and her other son having been
transacted individually by them would not disentitle the objector,
especially since she is said to have been residing in the said
property. The contention raised of the objector having not raised
the plea when the attachment was affixed to the property was found
to be inconsequential insofar as the present objection having been
filed immediately after possession notice was issued and there was
a threat of dispossession.
6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the matter
especially after looking into the impugned order and the orders it
reversed. We are unable to find a substantial question of law having
arisen since the impugned order proceeds on mere surmises and
conjectures, the facts having dealt with in precision by the
st
Executing Court and the 1 Appellate Court. Admittedly, in the suit
nd
filed for specific performance, the 2 defendant who remained ex-
Page 5 of 8
Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026

parte was the Company in which both JD-1 and the present objector
were Directors as evidenced from Annexure RJ-2 filed along with
the rejoinder. The specific defense was also that the amounts paid
nd
as per the agreement was in fact a loan taken by the 2 defendant
company to further its business. The objection of the mother
specifically contends that after her husband’s death in the year
1993, when her children were studying, she had taken care of the
business left behind by her husband and along with her sons, had
started various subsidiary companies wherein herself and her sons
were Directors. The objector cannot hence feign ignorance of the
suit, especially when notice was issued to the company who chose
not to appear. The defense taken by JD-1, the Director of the
company who was impleaded in his personal capacity was also that
the amounts paid by the plaintiff was a loan disbursed to the
company to secure which the sale agreement was executed.
7. The Executing Court and the Appellate Court have also found
that there were two other properties in the same locality. Plot no. 10,
belonging to the objector and plot no. 49 belonging to her other son;
transacted individually by them despite a claim having been now
raised by the objector that the properties acquired by the mother
and the brothers were acquired with the nucleus of the joint family
Page 6 of 8
Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026

business. The other son had also entered into a similar transaction
based on which Special Civil Suit No. 26/2014 had also been
decreed in a like manner. It is also pertinent that the attachment in
the execution proceedings with respect to the property, which is the
subject matter of the present proceedings, being plot no. 11, was
affixed in a conspicuous part of the property on 21.09.2017. The
objector having asserted that she was all along residing in the said
property, cannot feign ignorance of the execution proceedings and
delay a proper objection being taken up till dispossession is
threatened. The suit was decreed in 2017, and the execution
proceedings are pending for the last nine years, when several
objections were raised, all of which stood declined. A further
objection by the mother of the original judgment debtor claiming
rd
1/3 share in the property at this stage, when all along the mother
and the sons were carrying on the business together, to further the
prospects of which, the loan admittedly was taken, is a deliberate
attempt to stall the recovery.
8. We find absolutely no reason to sustain the impugned order.
The facts are clear and the objection was declined on a proper
consideration of the same. The opportunity to lead evidence and
prove the claim of co-ownership of the subject property has been
Page 7 of 8
Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026

proffered merely on a possibility of the claim being sustainable,
especially when there was nothing produced to prima facie
substantiate such a claim and the obvious facts being clearly against
such a claim. On the above reasoning, we set aside the impugned
order and restore the order of the Executing Court affirmed by the
st
1 Appellate Court, rejecting the objection. The property, if not
handed over as yet shall be expeditiously vacated and handed over
to the appellant by the Executing Court. The appeal stands allowed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..……….……………………. J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)





………..….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;
APRIL 23, 2026.
Page 8 of 8
Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026