The Inviolability of Decrees for Possession of Immovable Property: A Legal Analysis of Supreme Court’s Stance on Executing Courts

Introduction

The execution of judicial decrees represents the final and perhaps most critical phase of civil litigation in India. A decree, regardless of how meticulously obtained through years of legal proceedings, holds little practical value if it cannot be effectively executed. The Supreme Court of India has consistently emphasized that the sanctity of judicial pronouncements must be preserved through proper execution mechanisms, particularly when dealing with decrees for possession of immovable property.

In the landmark judgment of Ved Kumari (Dead Through Her Legal Representative) Dr. Vijay Agarwal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [1], delivered on August 24, 2023, the Supreme Court addressed fundamental questions regarding the powers, duties, and limitations of Executing Courts when confronted with third-party encroachments during the execution of possession decrees of Immovable Propery. This judgment has clarified long-standing ambiguities and reaffirmed that Executing Courts cannot abdicate their responsibility to enforce valid decrees merely because the property in question has been occupied by persons who were not parties to the original suit.

The implications of this judgment extend far beyond the immediate parties involved. It touches upon the broader principles of judicial discipline, the finality of decrees, and the protection of decree-holders’ rights. This article examines the legal framework governing the execution of possession decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), with particular reference to Order XXI Rules 97 to 101, while analyzing relevant case law that has shaped this area of procedural law.

The Legal Framework: Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure

Understanding Order XXI: Execution of Decrees and Orders

Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, constitutes the procedural backbone for the execution of all decrees and orders passed by civil courts in India. This Order contains detailed provisions ranging from the application for execution to the actual delivery of possession, sale of property, and distribution of proceeds. The drafters of the CPC recognized that execution proceedings require as much, if not more, procedural rigor as the original trial itself.

The execution process is not merely a ministerial or mechanical function. It involves judicial determination of various issues that may arise during the process of giving effect to a decree. The Executing Court, while bound by the decree it is executing, must nevertheless apply judicial discretion when dealing with obstacles, objections, and competing claims that emerge during execution.

Rules 97 to 101: The Procedural Framework for Possession Decrees

Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI CPC form a complete code for dealing with resistance or obstruction to the delivery of possession of immovable property. These provisions represent a carefully balanced legislative scheme that protects both the decree-holder’s right to obtain possession and the legitimate interests of persons who may claim rights in the property.

Rule 97 addresses situations where resistance or obstruction to possession is offered before actual dispossession takes place. When the decree-holder or purchaser applies for delivery of possession of immovable property, and any person resists or obstructs such delivery, the Executing Court has the power to issue an order to show cause why the person resisting should not be dispossessed and put into possession the decree-holder. This rule contemplates intervention by the court before actual physical dispossession occurs, thereby providing a preventive mechanism to avoid forcible confrontations.

The language of Rule 97 is significant in its use of the words “any person.” The legislature did not restrict this provision only to judgment-debtors or parties to the suit. This inclusive language means that even third parties, strangers to the decree, or persons claiming independent title can invoke this provision if they face dispossession pursuant to a decree for possession [2]. The rule thus balances the decree-holder’s rights with the principle that no person should be dispossessed without an opportunity to be heard.

Rule 98 prescribes the procedure following the inquiry under Rule 97. After examining the resistance or obstruction and hearing all interested parties, the Executing Court must make one of three determinations: it may dismiss the application if the objector establishes a prima facie right to possession; it may order dispossession and delivery to the decree-holder if the resistance is found to be unjustified; or it may make such other order as it deems appropriate based on the facts and circumstances.

The inquiry contemplated under these rules is not a full-fledged trial on title. Rather, it is a summary proceeding to determine whether the person resisting has a prima facie case that would justify allowing them to continue in possession pending determination of their rights through a separate suit. The Executing Court must act judiciously, neither dismissing legitimate claims summarily nor allowing frivolous objections to defeat the execution of valid decrees.

Rule 99 deals with situations where dispossession has already occurred by the decree-holder or purchaser, and the dispossessed person seeks restoration of possession. This rule recognizes that sometimes decree-holders may take the law into their own hands and physically dispossess occupants. In such cases, the dispossessed person can apply for restoration, and the court must follow similar procedures as under Rule 98.

Rule 100 provides special protection for bona fide claimants. If the Executing Court is satisfied that the person resisting or obstructing delivery of possession is a bona fide claimant, and the matter cannot be adequately resolved through summary proceedings, the court may direct such person to institute a regular suit to establish their rights. During the pendency of such suit, the court may make interim arrangements regarding possession.

Rule 101 addresses situations where persons appear before the Executing Court otherwise than in response to a summons, claiming rights in the property. This rule ensures that even persons who voluntarily come forward to assert their rights are given a fair hearing and their claims are adjudicated in accordance with the procedural framework established under these rules.

Collectively, these rules establish a comprehensive procedural mechanism that seeks to balance competing interests. They recognize that the decree-holder has a legitimate right to obtain the fruits of their decree, while simultaneously protecting persons who may have genuine claims to the property from arbitrary dispossession. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that these provisions must be interpreted and applied in a manner that achieves this balance [3].

The Ved Kumari Case: Factual Matrix and Judicial Analysis

Background of the Dispute

The case of Ved Kumari v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi arose from a property dispute with a long and complicated history. In 1973, Ved Kumari had leased out a parcel of land to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for a period of ten years. The lease was intended for a specific purpose and was granted on mutually agreed terms. Upon the expiry of the lease period in 1983, the property should have been returned to the lessor in accordance with the terms of the lease agreement.

However, as commonly occurs in property disputes in India, the Municipal Corporation did not voluntarily surrender possession upon the termination of the lease. This necessitated litigation by Ved Kumari to recover possession of her property. After protracted legal proceedings, a decree for possession was finally issued in favor of Ved Kumari on March 23, 1990, by the trial court. This decree directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to hand over vacant possession of the leased property to the decree-holder.

The decree attained finality as it was not challenged in appeal by the Municipal Corporation. Under the established principles of res judicata and the doctrine of finality of decrees, once a decree becomes final, it is binding on all parties and must be executed by the Executing Court without questioning its correctness or propriety.

The Execution Proceedings and Lower Court Decisions

When Ved Kumari sought to execute the decree by filing an execution petition, she encountered an unexpected obstacle. The Executing Court, instead of proceeding to deliver possession in accordance with the decree, dismissed the execution petition on a novel ground. The court observed that the property in question was no longer in the possession of the judgment-debtor (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) but had been occupied by encroachers who were not parties to the original suit.

The Municipal Corporation, in a remarkable volte-face from its position during the original proceedings, now claimed that it was not in possession of the property and therefore could not deliver possession. It asserted that encroachers had taken over the property and that the decree-holder should proceed against these encroachers separately. The Executing Court accepted this argument and held that since the encroachers were not parties to the decree, the execution petition was not maintainable and must be dismissed as inexecutable.

This approach by the Executing Court fundamentally undermined the entire purpose of the decree. It effectively meant that a judgment-debtor could defeat a decree for possession simply by allowing or facilitating third-party encroachment on the decretal property. The decree-holder, after years of litigation and having obtained a final decree, was being told that the decree could not be executed because of circumstances created after the passing of the decree.

The High Court, in revision proceedings, upheld the Executing Court’s decision. The High Court took the view that since the Municipal Corporation was no longer in possession, it could not be compelled to deliver possession, and the decree-holder must pursue separate remedies against the encroachers. This approach showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of execution proceedings and the duties of Executing Courts under the CPC.

Supreme Court’s Intervention and Analysis

Ved Kumari, through her legal representative, approached the Supreme Court challenging these orders. The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, decisively reversed the lower courts’ decisions and laid down important principles regarding the execution of possession decrees.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by emphasizing the fundamental principle that a decree for possession, once it attains finality, cannot be rendered inexecutable merely because circumstances have changed after its passing. The court noted that the decree dated March 23, 1990, had become final and binding on all parties. The Municipal Corporation, having not challenged the decree, could not now take a contrary position during execution proceedings.

The court observed that during the original proceedings, the trial court had specifically found that the land was in the possession of the Municipal Corporation. This finding was part of the decree and could not be contradicted during execution. If the Municipal Corporation had subsequently allowed encroachers to occupy the property, whether through negligence or design, this could not defeat the decree-holder’s rights.

Turning to the legal provisions, the Supreme Court conducted a detailed examination of Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI CPC. The court emphasized that these provisions create a complete procedural framework for dealing with exactly the kind of situation that had arisen in this case. Where any person, including a third party or stranger to the decree, resists or obstructs the delivery of possession, the Executing Court has clear authority and indeed a duty to proceed under these rules.

The Supreme Court held that the Executing Court should have issued a warrant of possession for effecting physical delivery of the property to the decree-holder as mandated by the decree. If, during the attempt to execute the warrant, any encroachers or other persons resisted or obstructed the delivery, the matter should have been dealt with in accordance with Rules 97 to 101. The Executing Court had the power to summon the encroachers, inquire into their claims, and determine whether they had any prima facie right to resist dispossession.

By dismissing the execution petition as inexecutable without following this procedure, the Executing Court had committed a serious jurisdictional error. The Supreme Court emphasized that an Executing Court cannot abdicate its responsibility to execute a valid decree on the ground that third parties have occupied the property. To permit such an approach would open the floodgates to all manner of mischief, where judgment-debtors could easily defeat decrees by facilitating third-party encroachments.

The Supreme Court’s judgment referenced several earlier precedents to support its reasoning. In the case of Sameer Singh v. Abdul Rab [4], the Supreme Court had held that the Executing Court has the authority to adjudicate all questions pertaining to right, title, or interest in the property arising between parties, including claims of strangers who apprehend dispossession. This broad jurisdiction is provided to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure that all claims can be determined expeditiously within the execution proceedings themselves.

The court also noted that the procedural provisions in Order XXI are designed to protect legitimate rights while preventing frivolous objections from defeating valid decrees. If a third-party claimant has a genuine case, they can assert it before the Executing Court under Rule 97. The court will examine the claim and, if necessary, can direct the claimant to file a separate suit. However, the mere existence of third-party claims cannot justify dismissing an execution petition as inexecutable.

The Final Order and Directions

After setting aside the orders of the lower courts, the Supreme Court issued specific directions for the execution of the decree. The court directed the Executing Court to execute the decree by effecting delivery of physical vacant possession to the decree-holder in accordance with the provisions contained in Order XXI of the CPC. The court made it clear that the Executing Court must follow the procedural framework laid down in Rules 97 to 101 when dealing with any resistance or obstruction from encroachers or other third parties.

The Supreme Court’s judgment thus vindicated the rights of the decree-holder after decades of litigation and legal proceedings. More importantly, it established clear legal principles that would govern similar cases in the future, providing guidance to Executing Courts across the country on how to deal with third-party claims during execution proceedings.

Comparative Analysis: Other Relevant Judgments

The Principle of Complete Code in Execution Proceedings

The Supreme Court’s approach in Ved Kumari is consistent with a long line of judicial pronouncements that have recognized Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI as a complete code for dealing with resistance or obstruction to possession. In Brahmdeo Choudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal [5], the Supreme Court had held that these provisions lay down a complete code for resolving all disputes pertaining to execution of decrees for possession.

The concept of a “complete code” is significant in legal interpretation. It means that the provisions are self-contained and exhaustive for the purpose they are designed to serve. When the legislature creates a complete code, courts must resolve issues within that framework rather than resorting to general principles or requiring separate proceedings. In the context of execution, this means that all objections, claims, and defenses relating to possession must be dealt with by the Executing Court under these rules, rather than requiring the decree-holder to file separate suits.

Protection of Third-Party Rights

While the Ved Kumari judgment strongly protects decree-holders’ rights, it does not leave third parties without recourse. The judgment must be read in conjunction with other precedents that have balanced these competing interests. In Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs v. V. Rajamani [6], a recent 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated that Order XXI Rule 97 also provides adequate remedy to strangers who obstruct or resist delivery of possession of property.

The court in Periyammal emphasized that if an application under Order XXI Rule 97 is made, its determination will be under Rule 101, and orders passed under these rules have the same force as decrees. This means that third parties have a meaningful opportunity to establish their rights before the Executing Court. If they succeed in showing a prima facie case, they can protect their possession. If their case requires detailed examination, the court can direct them to file a separate suit while making appropriate interim arrangements.

Limitations on Who Can File Applications Under Rule 97

The courts have also clarified certain limitations on the use of Rule 97. In Shriram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust [7], the Supreme Court held that a purchaser of the suit property from the decree-holder is not entitled to file an application under Order XXI Rule 97 objecting to the execution of the decree by the decree-holder. This judgment clarified that Rule 97 is meant to protect persons facing dispossession, not to create disputes between the decree-holder and their transferees.

Similarly, in recent judgments, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the bar under Rule 102 of Order XXI, which prevents the judgment-debtor and those claiming through them from questioning the decree during execution, must be strictly applied. However, this bar does not apply to parties who purchased the property from third parties rather than from the judgment-debtor [8].

These nuances in the law demonstrate the careful balance that courts must maintain. While protecting decree-holders from frivolous objections and ensuring that valid decrees are executed, the legal system must also provide adequate safeguards for persons who have legitimate claims to property. The procedural framework in Order XXI attempts to achieve this balance through a structured inquiry process.

Practical Implications for Stakeholders

For Decree-Holders

The Ved Kumari judgment provides significant protection and relief to decree-holders who face obstacles in executing possession decrees. The judgment makes clear that Executing Courts cannot dismiss execution petitions merely because third parties have occupied the property. Decree-holders can insist that the Executing Court follow the proper procedure under Order XXI and issue warrants of possession.

However, decree-holders must also be prepared for the procedural steps that may follow. If third parties resist delivery of possession, the court will conduct an inquiry under Rules 97 and 98. The decree-holder may need to present evidence and arguments to show that the third-party claims are not bona fide or do not justify refusing execution. In cases where encroachment has occurred after the decree, decree-holders should maintain evidence of the timeline to demonstrate that these are attempts to defeat the decree rather than pre-existing rights.

For Judgment-Debtors

The judgment serves as a stern warning to judgment-debtors who might contemplate allowing or facilitating third-party encroachments as a means of defeating execution. The Supreme Court has made clear that such tactics will not be tolerated. A judgment-debtor cannot escape their obligation to deliver possession by claiming that the property is now in the hands of encroachers.

Judgment-debtors must understand that they remain bound by the decree until it is properly executed. If they have genuinely lost possession to third parties without their involvement, they should cooperate with the execution proceedings and provide relevant information to the court. However, attempting to use third-party encroachments as a shield against execution will invite adverse consequences.

For Third Parties and Encroachers

For persons who claim rights in property subject to a possession decree, the legal framework provides adequate protection if their claims are genuine. Such persons should promptly invoke Rule 97 when they learn of execution proceedings. They must present cogent evidence of their prima facie rights to the Executing Court.

However, persons who occupy property after a decree has been passed, particularly those who do so with knowledge of the decree, face significant legal risks. If the Executing Court finds that their occupation was designed to defeat the decree, they may face not only dispossession but potentially other consequences as well. The safest course for such persons is to file a separate suit establishing their rights rather than merely obstructing execution.

For Executing Courts

The Ved Kumari judgment provides clear guidance to Executing Courts on their duties and powers. Executing Courts must recognize that they have a duty to execute valid decrees and cannot shirk this responsibility merely because third parties have occupied the property. The judgment emphasizes that Rules 97 to 101 provide a complete procedural framework that must be followed.

Executing Courts should issue warrants of possession in accordance with decrees. If resistance is encountered, they must conduct proper inquiries under the prescribed rules. These inquiries should be conducted fairly and expeditiously, giving all parties an opportunity to present their case. The court must then make appropriate orders based on the evidence and circumstances.

Critically, Executing Courts must avoid the error committed in Ved Kumari of dismissing execution petitions as inexecutable. Such dismissals are justified only in extremely rare circumstances where it is genuinely impossible to execute the decree, not merely difficult or complicated. The presence of third-party claims does not make a decree inexecutable; it merely requires following the proper procedure for dealing with such claims.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ved Kumari v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi represents a significant reaffirmation of fundamental principles governing execution of decrees for possession of Immovable Property in Indian civil procedure. By holding that Executing Courts cannot dismiss execution petitions as inexecutable merely because third parties have occupied the decretal property, the court has protected the sanctity and finality of judicial decrees.

The judgment serves multiple important purposes. It prevents abuse of the execution process by judgment-debtors who might otherwise facilitate third-party encroachments to defeat decrees. It provides clarity to Executing Courts on their duties and powers under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the CPC. It protects the rights of decree-holders who have spent years in litigation to obtain their decrees. At the same time, by emphasizing the procedural framework in these rules, the judgment ensures that legitimate third-party rights are not trampled.

The legal framework established by the CPC and interpreted by the Supreme Court represents a careful balancing act. Decrees must be executed to maintain the credibility of the judicial system and ensure that litigation is not rendered meaningless. However, execution must be carried out in accordance with due process, giving all affected persons an opportunity to be heard. The provisions of Order XXI, particularly Rules 97 to 101, embody this balance.

Going forward, the Ved Kumari judgment will serve as an important precedent for courts, especially in matters involving decrees for possession of immovable property. It clarifies that the Executing Court’s role is not merely ministerial; the court must actively adjudicate issues that arise during execution and ensure that valid decrees are properly enforced, while also addressing legitimate objections.

For the legal system as a whole, the Ved Kumari judgment reinforces the principle that judicial determinations must be enforced. Without effective execution mechanisms, the entire edifice of civil justice would crumble. Parties would have no incentive to respect court orders if they could be easily defeated through tactical maneuvers. The judgment thus protects not just individual decree-holders but the broader integrity of the judicial process.

The implications extend beyond decrees for possession of immovable property to all forms of execution proceedings. The principles of finality of decrees, the duty of Executing Courts to execute valid decrees, and the availability of procedural mechanisms to address objections apply across the spectrum of civil execution. Consequently, this judgment will influence execution proceedings in a wide range of contexts.

As India’s legal system continues to evolve, ensuring effective execution of decrees remains a critical challenge. Backlogs in execution proceedings, tactical delays, and resistance from judgment-debtors continue to plague the system. The Ved Kumari judgment, by providing clear guidance and strong legal principles, contributes to addressing these challenges. It reminds all stakeholders that decrees are not mere paper pronouncements but binding legal obligations that must be honored and enforced.

References

[1] Ved Kumari (Dead Through Her Legal Representative) Dr. Vijay Agarwal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2023) 10 SCC 1, Available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/08/26/executing-court-cannot-dismiss-execution-petition-possession-third-party-supreme-court/ 

[2] Supreme Court Cases Online, “Rules 97, 98 and 101 of Order 21 of CPC enable Executing Court to adjudicate inter-se claims,” Available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/07/01/rules-97-98-101-order-21-cpc-enable-executing-court-decide-inter-se-claims-parties-supreme-court/ 

[3] LiveLaw, “Execution Petition Can’t Be Dismissed As Inexecutable Merely Because Property’s Possession Is Lost To Third Party,” Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/execution-petition-cant-be-dismissed-as-inexcusable-merely-because-propertys-possession-is-lost-to-third-party-supreme-court-236303 

[4] Sameer Singh v. Abdul Rab, (2015) 1 SCC 379

[5] Brahmdeo Choudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, (1997) 5 SCC 1, Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1203615/ 

[6] Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs v. V. Rajamani, 2025 INSC 329, Available at: https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/periyammal-dead-through-lrs-v-v-rajamani-2025-insc-329-order-xxi-rule-97-cpc-1570426 

[7] Shriram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust, (2022) 9 SCC 317, Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-order-xxi-rule-97-cpc-purchaser-objections-decree-holder-shriram-housing-finance-and-investment-india-ltd-vs-omesh-mishra-memorial-charitable-trust-2022-livelaw-sc-565-203135 

[8] LiveLaw, “Order XXI Rule 102 CPC Bar Not Applicable To Party Who Purchased Suit Property Not From Judgment-Debtor,” Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/order-xxi-rule-102-cpc-bar-not-applicable-to-party-who-purchased-suit-property-not-from-judgment-debtor-supreme-court-302197 

[9] Supreme Court Cases Online, “Supreme Court directs High Courts to ensure pending execution petitions to be decided within six months,” Available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/03/08/supreme-court-directs-high-courts-pending-execution-petitions-six-months/