Executing courts cannot reject third-party objections to partial possession by assuming transfer of the entire decretal property.

The Appellant/Objector challenged the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, South District, Saket Courts, Delhi, in Execution Petition No. 3089/2016.

The execution proceedings arose from an ex parte decree dated 29.06.2015 directing the judgment-debtors to vacate and deliver possession of the decretal property, besides granting monetary relief and injunction.

The Appellant/Objector claimed that she had acquired possession of only 25 square yards forming part of property measuring 60 square yards, pursuant to documents dated 25.10.2014, including a GPA, agreement to sell, Will and affidavit.

She asserted that she acquired knowledge of the execution proceedings on 24.12.2021.

The Executing Court rejected her objections, principally reasoning that the judgment-debtor or his wife had received summons/notices at the premises in 2014 and 2017, that the judgment-debtor had not disclosed any transfer, and that the Appellant’s documents were unregistered and did not inspire confidence.

In appeal, the Appellant contended that the Executing Court had incorrectly proceeded on the assumption that she claimed the entire 60-square-yard property, whereas her case concerned only 25 square yards.

Whether the Executing Court erred in rejecting the Appellant/Objector’s objections by proceeding on the erroneous assumption that she claimed the entire decretal property, instead of only 25 square yards?

Whether service of summons or notices upon the judgment-debtor or his wife at the premises in 2014 and 2017 was, by itself, conclusive against the Appellant’s claim of possession over 25 square yards from 2014?

Whether the Executing Court was required to independently and comprehensively examine the objections of a third party claiming an independent right in part of the property under execution, notwithstanding the rule that an executing court cannot go behind the decree?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in examining the challenge to the execution order.

It applied the principle under Section 47 CPC that an executing court cannot go behind the decree or sit in appeal over its validity; however, this limitation does not prevent the executing court from examining objections raised by a third party claiming an independent right or interest in the property under execution.

The Court further held that such objections must be considered in their entirety and with reference to the specific factual case advanced by the objector, including the extent and identity of the property claimed.

The legal effect and sufficiency of unregistered documents were matters to be determined by the Executing Court in the first instance.

The High Court found that the Executing Court’s reasoning substantially depended on the premise that the entire 60-square-yard property had been transferred to the Appellant/Objector.

That premise did not correspond with her pleaded case, which was confined to possession of 25 square yards.

Consequently, the fact that the judgment-debtor or his wife received summons or notices at the premises in 2014 and 2017 could not, without further examination, conclusively negate the Appellant’s claim to a distinct portion of the property.

The Executing Court was required to examine the identity and extent of the claimed 25-square-yard portion, along with the evidentiary value of the documents relied upon, rather than reject the objections solely on the basis of subsequent service and the judgment-debtor’s conduct.

Although the Executing Court could not reopen or invalidate the original decree, it was obliged to adjudicate the third-party objections in accordance with law.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Executing Court for fresh consideration of the objections, particularly regarding the extent and identity of the portion claimed, within one year.

The High Court expressly left open all questions concerning the Appellant’s title, ownership and the legal effect of her documents for determination by the Executing Court in accordance with law.