Third-Party Occupants’ Claim to Title Through a 1930 Auction Purchase Gets Evidence Hearing in Eviction Case, Madras HC Orders

The first respondent obtained an eviction order against the second respondent-tenant in H.R.C.O.P. No. 7 of 2015, which was put into execution.

Earlier attempts to obstruct delivery by the Union Territory of Puducherry and M/s. Kathiravan Furnitures had been unsuccessful.

The petitioners, who were not parties to the eviction proceedings and did not claim through either earlier obstructor, filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC asserting independent possession and title.

They relied on 14 documents, but the Executing Court dismissed the unnumbered application at the threshold without examining those materials.

The petitioners challenged that dismissal under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order XXI Rule 97 CPC provides the procedure for adjudicating resistance or obstruction to execution of a decree for possession; the Court treated the Order XXI procedure as a complete code for resolving such objections, rather than requiring the objector to bring a separate suit.

As recognised in Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory v. Kamal, 2026 (2) MWN (Civil) 365, framing issues and recording evidence are not automatic: summary rejection may be permissible where the pleadings and materials disclose no prima facie right or objection, including where the claim appears to be an afterthought intended to delay execution.

The Court also relied on its decision in Mary Kala v. Hussaini Begum, CRP No. 2949 of 2026, dated 21 July 2026, concerning the need for a detailed enquiry where the pleadings and supporting documents warrant one.

The earlier applications did not bind the petitioners because they claimed neither through the Union Territory nor through Kathiravan Furnitures, and asserted an independent right to possession.

Unlike the circumstances in Challani Ginning, the petitioners’ claim was not shown on the record to be merely a derivative or belated obstruction; they had produced 14 documents in support of their claim.

The Executing Court had not tested those documents or otherwise examined the asserted right.

In those circumstances, summary dismissal at the threshold was erroneous, and the claim required adjudication under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC.

It directed the Executing Court to number the application, give the petitioners a fair opportunity to present their objections and adduce oral and documentary evidence, and permit the decree holders to lead evidence if they wished.

The enquiry was to be completed within four months, without unnecessary adjournments; further orders in the execution proceedings would depend on its result.