Third-party resistance to possession execution requires full adjudication under Order XXI Rules 97–101 CPC.

Respondent No. 1 obtained an ex parte decree for specific performance and possession of the suit property against Respondent No. 2.

In execution, the Appellant, claiming to be a stranger to the decree and asserting an independent interest in the property as waqf property, filed an objection under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC.

The Executing Court dismissed the objection, including on the ground that Rule 58 did not apply because the execution petition sought delivery of possession rather than attachment.

The High Court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal, also finding that the Appellant had not established its title or connected the property to the relevant waqf records.

The Appellant challenged those decisions before the Supreme Court.

Whether a third-party objection to execution seeking delivery of possession could be rejected merely because it was brought under Order XXI Rule 58 rather than the applicable provisions governing resistance to possession.

Whether the competing claims concerning the identity and rights in the suit property required a fresh inquiry by the Executing Court.

Order XXI Rule 35 CPC concerns delivery of possession under a decree, while Rules 97 to 101 provide for adjudication where execution is resisted or obstructed by any person, including a stranger claiming an independent right, title or interest.

Under Rule 97, the decree-holder may seek adjudication of resistance before possession is delivered; Rule 99 provides a remedy to a qualifying person after dispossession; and Rule 101 requires the Executing Court to determine relevant questions of right, title or interest between the parties.

The Court relied on Periyammal (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others v. V. Rajamani and Another, (2025) 9 SCC 568, for these principles and for the requirement of a full inquiry into the obstructionist’s claim.

The Supreme Court held that the lower courts’ approach did not conform to those principles.

The fact that the Appellant had invoked Rule 58, although the execution concerned delivery of possession, did not justify rejecting the objection without the inquiry required under Order XXI Rules 97–101.

The record also raised an unresolved question about whether the property described in the decree was the same property claimed by the Appellant through its waqf records.

The Court considered it impermissible to resolve that question by placing the burden solely on the Appellant, particularly when the property descriptions and supporting documents required examination.

The Executing Court was directed to permit both parties to raise further or fresh pleas, conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with the principles stated in Periyammal, and decide the matter afresh.

The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.