Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal have held that despite the respondents having filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC), it would be treated as an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, which eliminated the necessity for a separate application under that provision.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Periyammal (Dead Thr. Lrs.) and ORS v. Rajamani and Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of  Periyammal (Dead Thr. Lrs.) and ORS v. Rajamani and Anr Case? 

• On 30th June, 1980, Ayyavoo Udayar (father of the appellants) entered into an agreement of sale with Ramanujan and Jagadeesan (respondent nos. 3 and 4) to purchase the disputed property for Rs. 67,000/-. 
• Ayyavoo Udayar paid Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money, with the balance of Rs. 57,000/- to be paid by 15th November 1980, upon which the vendors would execute the sale deed. 
• On 15th November 1980, Ayyavoo Udayar sent a telegram requesting the vendors to accept the balance payment and execute the sale deed. The vendors replied they would execute it on 20th November 1980 but failed to do so. 
• Since the vendors did not execute the sale deed despite notices and settlement talks, Ayyavoo Udayar filed O.S. No. 514 of 1983 before the Subordinate Judge, Salem, seeking specific performance of the agreement. 
• Respondent nos. 1 and 2 (sons of the vendors' sister) were impleaded in the suit as they had been inducted into the property to create an appearance of possession. They did not contest the suit and allowed it to proceed ex parte against them. 
• On 2nd April 1986, the Additional Subordinate Judge decreed the suit and directed the vendors to execute the sale deed within one month, failing which the court would execute it. 
• The vendors appealed to the High Court, which partly allowed the appeal with some modifications. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 did not appear in the appeal. 
• The vendors' second appeal to the High Court Division Bench was dismissed on March 19, 2004, with a condition that appellants would deposit an additional Rs. 67,000/- within one month. The appellants deposited this amount on April 19, 2004. 
• The vendors filed a special leave petition to the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 20th January, 2006. Their subsequent review petition was also dismissed on April 18, 2006. 
• The appellants filed execution petitions (R.E.P. No. 237 of 2004 and later R.E.P. No. 244 of 2005) for executing the sale deed and obtaining possession. 
• On 17th August 2007, the Executing Court executed a registered sale deed in favor of the appellants on behalf of all respondents, including respondent nos. 1 and 2. 
• The vendors objected to including respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the sale deed. The appellants agreed to their removal, and a rectification deed was executed on January 25, 2008. 
• On 12th February 2008, the Executing Court ordered delivery of possession to the appellants. However, respondent no. 1 obstructed the delivery by threatening self-immolation, resulting in an obstruction report. 
• On 12th March 2008, respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC (R.E.A. 163 of 2011), claiming they received no notice regarding execution of the sale deed, their names were deleted from the deed making it non-binding on them, and alleging fraud by the appellants. 
• Respondent nos. 1 and 2 also petitioned the Tehsildar to include their names in the cultivation account for the property retrospectively from 1974, claiming possession since 1967. 
• On 12th August 2011, the Additional Subordinate Judge allowed the respondents' application, finding they had established possession of the property, and ruled that appellants had not sought relief against them in the execution petitions. 
• The appellants challenged this through Civil Revision Petition No. 4311 of 2011 and filed amendment applications (R.E.A. No. 14 of 2012 and R.E.A. No. 145 of 2013) to modify their original execution petition. 
• On 24th April 2015, the ASJ disallowed the amendments, ruling that since no appeal had been filed against the 12th August 2011 order, it had become final and binding.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court has made significant observations regarding the interplay between Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and Order XXI Rule 97 in execution proceedings.  
• The Court has established the following legal position: 
  • An application filed under Section 47 of CPC relating to determination of questions concerning execution of a decree shall be deemed as an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 if it raises questions pertaining to right, title, or interest in the property. 
  • While Section 47 CPC and Order XXI Rule 97 address distinct proceedings—with the former concerning execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree and the latter dealing with resistance or obstruction to possession—an application under Section 47 filed by a judgment debtor or an aggrieved third party will be treated as one under Order XXI Rule 97 if it substantively raises questions of possessory rights. 
  • The Court elucidated that where an application under Section 47 CPC raises objections concerning rights in the property, which the executing court cannot determine post-decree, reclassifying it as an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC empowers the executing court to adjudicate such issues in accordance with Rule 101. 
  • The Supreme Court reaffirmed the legal principle that the executing court cannot question the validity of the decree or go beyond its scope, but can determine questions of right, title or interest in the property under Order XXI Rule 101 when an application is properly before it under Rule 97. 
  • In the instant case, the respondents who claimed to be bona fide cultivating tenants were attempting to resist dispossession after the decree was passed—an issue they could have raised during the trial. The Court treated their Section 47 application substantively as one under Order XXI Rule 97 and adjudicated it under Rule 101. 
  • The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the order of the Executing Court, directing that vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property be handed over to the appellants as decree holders within two months, with police assistance if necessary. 
• This judgment clarifies the procedural framework for addressing challenges in execution proceedings, particularly when questions of right and possession arise, and reinforces the comprehensive scheme under Order XXI for resolving disputes pertaining to execution of decrees for possession. 

What is Section 47 of CPC? 

• Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) deals with questions related to decree execution. Here are the key statements summarizing this section: 
  • All questions between parties to a suit relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree must be determined by the Court executing the decree, not by a separate suit. 
  • The Court has the authority to determine whether any person is a representative of a party for the purposes of this section. 
  • A plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are still considered parties to the suit. 
  • A purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree is deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree was passed. 
  • All questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to the purchaser or their representative are considered questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree. 
  • The fundamental principle behind Section 47 is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings by ensuring that all execution-related matters are handled by the same court that passed the decree. 

What are the Relevant Provisions Referred? 

• Order XXI: Deals with Execution of Decrees and Orders Payment under Decree. 
• Order XXI Rule 97: Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property. 
  • When a decree-holder or purchaser of immovable property is resisted or obstructed in obtaining possession, they may apply to the Court complaining of such resistance/obstruction. 
  • Upon such application, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate the matter according to the provisions contained in the Order. 
• Order XXI Rule 98: Orders after adjudication: 
  • After determining questions under Rule 101, the Court shall:  
    • Allow the application and direct the applicant be put into possession, or dismiss the application. 
    • Pass any other appropriate order as deemed fit. 
  • If resistance was without just cause by the judgment-debtor or someone acting on their behalf, or by a transferee during pending proceedings, the Court shall:  
    • Direct the applicant be put into possession. 
    • May order detention in civil prison for up to 30 days if resistance continues. 
• Order XXI Rule 99: Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser: 
  • When any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed by a decree-holder or purchaser, they may apply to the Court. 
  • The Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon such application. 
• Order XXI Rule 100: Order to be passed upon application complaining of dispossession: 
  • Upon determination of questions under Rule 101, the Court shall:  
    • Allow the application and direct the applicant be put into possession or dismiss the application. 
    • Pass any other appropriate order as deemed fit. 
• Rule 101: Question to be determined: 
  • All questions (including right, title, or interest) arising between parties on applications under Rules 97 or 99:  
    • Shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application. 
    • Not by a separate suit. 
    • The Court shall be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions regardless of contrary provisions in other laws.