Frivolous property claims by judgment debtor's relatives to stall execution proceedings must be summarily rejected.

The appellant filed a suit in 2013 for specific performance regarding an agreement from 2011 involving a payment of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- to the second defendant (a company)

The trial court declined specific performance but decreed a refund of the amount with 8% interest on 24.07.2017

Upon non-payment, the appellant filed an execution petition, and the suit property was attached on 21.09.2017

Multiple objections by the Judgment Debtor (JD-1) and his assignees were dismissed. Subsequently, the respondent (mother of JD-1 and a Director in the same company) filed an objection under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the CPC, claiming the property was joint family property in which she held a 1/3rd share

The Execution Court and First Appellate Court dismissed her objection, but the High Court reversed these orders in a second appeal, directing that she be allowed to lead evidence

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of the lower courts and requiring the framing of issues and evidence for a third-party objection under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the CPC

2. Whether the respondent's claim of being a bona fide third party ignorant of the proceedings was sustainable given her role as a Director in the defendant company

The Court primarily applied Rules 97, 98, 99, and 101 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, as amended in 1976

These provisions constitute a "complete code" for resolving all questions relating to right, title, or interest in the property arising between the parties to an execution proceeding or their representatives, including third parties, without the need for a separate suit

The Court also scrutinized the principle of "substantial question of law" required for interference in a second appeal

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s decision rested on "surmises and conjectures" rather than a substantial question of law

The Court noted that the respondent was a Director in the company (Defendant No. 2) to which the original sale consideration was paid, making her claim of "ignorance" regarding the 2013 suit and 2017 attachment legally untenable

Furthermore, the court highlighted that other family properties had been transacted individually by the respondent and her other son, contradicting the claim that all acquisitions were from a "joint family nucleus"

The Supreme Court determined that the objection was a "deliberate attempt to stall recovery" after previous attempts by the JD-1 and his assignees had failed

Since there was no prima facie evidence to substantiate the co-ownership claim and the facts demonstrated the respondent’s prior knowledge through her directorship, the Execution Court was correct in declining the objection without a full trial

The Court held that the objection was a frivolous attempt to frustrate the decree. It directed that the property be expeditiously vacated and handed over to the appellant/decree-holder