Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India has set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court in a case concerning the execution of a decree for specific performance of a property sale agreement. The court held that objections raised at the execution stage cannot defeat a decree that has attained finality. It directed that execution proceedings be concluded within a fixed timeframe and that possession of the property be handed over to the decree-holder.

The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal examined whether objections to execution raised by third parties could be entertained after the decree had been confirmed in previous proceedings. The court recorded that procedural law should facilitate, rather than hinder, the enforcement of judicial orders and stated that execution proceedings should not be prolonged due to belated objections.

Also Read: Prosecutrix Between 16 To 18 Years Of Age; Understood What Was Right & Wrong For Her: SC Acquits Accused Of Kidnapping Minor Girl

The dispute arose from an agreement of sale executed on June 30, 1980, between the vendors and the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. The vendors agreed to sell the property for ₹67,000, with an advance of ₹10,000 paid at the time of execution. The balance was to be paid upon execution of the sale deed by November 15, 1980.

The purchaser sought execution of the sale deed, but the vendors did not comply. After multiple attempts at settlement, the purchaser filed a suit for specific performance before the Subordinate Judge, Salem, in 1983. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff on April 2, 1986, directing execution of the sale deed and delivery of possession.

The vendors challenged the decree before the Madras High Court, which modified certain terms but upheld the direction for execution of the sale deed. Further appeals were dismissed, confirming the decree in favor of the appellants. The appellants then initiated execution proceedings to enforce the decree.

During the execution proceedings, two respondents, who were nephews of the vendors, objected to the delivery of possession, claiming to be cultivating tenants under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act, 1955. They filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that the decree could not be enforced against them as they were not parties to the original suit.

The executing court allowed their objections, holding that possession could not be delivered without further proceedings. The appellants challenged this decision before the High Court, which upheld the executing court’s order. The present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court examined whether the objections raised under Section 47 CPC were sustainable at the execution stage. The court recorded that once a decree has attained finality, the executing court cannot entertain new claims that were not raised during the trial. The judgment states:

"Once a sale deed is executed under the decree of specific performance, any person claiming possession of the suit property has to take recourse to law, but such a claim would not render the decree inexecutable."

The court referred to its previous decisions and recorded that the scope of Section 47 CPC is limited to objections related to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree. The judgment further states:

"The executing court, in the guise of deciding objections, cannot refuse to execute the decree by questioning its validity or correctness. That would amount to sitting in appeal over the decree itself, which is impermissible."

It recorded that procedural law should not become an instrument to obstruct the realization of substantive rights granted by a decree. The judgment states:

"It is trite that procedure is the handmaid of justice. It is meant to advance and not to obstruct the cause of justice. Execution of a decree is the culmination of a judicial proceeding, and any interpretation which prevents a decree-holder from reaping the benefits of his success in litigation should be eschewed."

The court further recorded that the objections raised by the respondents were belated and without supporting evidence. The judgment states:

"The objectors neither placed any documentary evidence on record to prove their alleged tenancy rights nor established how such rights could override a decree for specific performance."

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and quashing the objections raised by the respondents in execution proceedings. The judgment directs:

"The objections raised by the respondents under Section 47 CPC are unsustainable. The execution of the decree shall proceed, and the decree-holders shall be put in possession of the suit property."

It directed that execution proceedings be concluded within six months from the date of the order. The judgment states:

"We direct that all execution petitions shall be disposed of within a period of six months from today, barring exceptional circumstances which may be recorded in writing."

It further recorded that High Courts must ensure that execution proceedings do not remain pending indefinitely. The judgment states:

"High Courts must monitor the progress of execution petitions and issue appropriate directions to ensure compliance."

It was directed that compliance with the order be reported within seven months. The judgment states:

"The compliance report shall be filed within seven months before the jurisdictional High Court, detailing the execution of the decree."

Also Read: Orissa High Court: 'Delayed Gratuity Not Eligible for Interest When Withheld Due to Employee’s Dues and Audit Objections'

The executing court was directed to ensure delivery of possession within two months. The judgment states:

"The executing court shall ensure that possession is delivered to the decree-holder within two months. If there is resistance, police assistance shall be provided."

It was further directed that no further objections should delay the execution process. The judgment states:

"No further objections shall be entertained by the executing court except those that strictly pertain to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree."

Case Title: Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr. Etc.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 329
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice Pankaj Mithal

[Read/Download order]