A party bound by a final possession decree cannot resist its execution.

The respondents obtained a decree in O.S. No. 320 of 2009 declaring their ownership of the suit property and entitling them to recover possession of one acre from the defendants, including the petitioner, Lalitha.

The petitioner had defended the suit on the basis that the land had been gifted to the school; the trial court rejected that defence.

The decree was affirmed in further proceedings and attained finality.

In execution, an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC filed by Basappa, stated to be the president of the school’s SDMC, was rejected, and the executing court issued a warrant for delivery of possession.

Lalitha brought this petition under Article 227, challenging the warrant insofar as it concerned the one-acre property, and relied on the school’s use of the land and the potential impact on its students.

Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the executing court’s order issuing a warrant for delivery of possession pursuant to a decree that had attained finality

Whether the petitioner’s grounds concerning the school building, students, and public expenditure justified withholding execution of the possession decree

Article 227 of the Constitution provides the basis for the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

Order XXI Rule 97 CPC provides the procedural mechanism for a decree-holder to seek the executing court’s assistance when resisted or obstructed in obtaining possession.

The court applied the principle that a decree which has attained finality is to be given effect in execution; it identified no precedent or separate statutory test governing the Article 227 challenge in this order

The petitioner had been a party to the original suit and had raised the same essential claim—that the land had been gifted to the school and was in its possession.

That defence was rejected at trial, and the decree was affirmed through further proceedings, including before the Supreme Court.

In those circumstances, the executing court was entitled to issue a warrant to enforce the final possession decree after possession was not delivered.

The petitioner’s concerns about disruption to the school, its students, and public expenditure did not provide a basis to interfere with execution of the decree.

The executing court’s order issuing a warrant for delivery of possession of the one-acre property therefore remained undisturbed.