Supreme Court: citing the wrong CPC provision can't defeat a stranger's objection to execution of a decree

A charitable trust, Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf, claimed possession of shops at Pathergatti, Hyderabad, tracing its title to a 1943 Nizam-era Farman and a 1976 trust deed. A decree-holder who had won an ex parte suit for specific performance of a 2001 sale agreement over overlapping land sought delivery of possession in execution. The trust resisted as a third-party objector, but the Executing Court dismissed its claim partly because it was filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC, which covers objections to attachment, rather than Rule 97, which covers resistance to delivery of possession; the High Court affirmed, also holding the trust had failed to prove title.

The Supreme Court set aside both orders. Following its own ruling in Periyammal v. V. Rajamani, it held that a stranger to a decree who resists execution and claims an independent right, title or interest must be heard on the merits under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101, and that quoting the wrong provision is no ground to reject the objection outright; the decree-holder's only remedy against such resistance is an inquiry under Rule 97, not a fresh warrant for possession under Rule 35. It also found the burden of proof had been wrongly placed entirely on the trust rather than weighed against the decree-holder's own sketchy documents, and remanded the matter to the Executing Court for a full inquiry into both parties' claims.