Posts in category: Judgements

The Supreme Court recently observed that an application filed under Section 47 of CPC relating to the determination of questions related to the execution of the decree would be deemed as an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 if it raises questions of right, title, or interest in the property.

The Court clarified that while applications under Section 47 of the CPC and Order 21 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, including by third parties— an application under Section 47 filed by a judgment debtor or an aggrieved third party will be treated as one under Order 21 Rule 97 if it raises questions of right, title, or interest in the property. In such cases, the executing court must adjudicate these questions under Order 21 Rule 101.

Also Read – Refusal Of Alleged Rape Victim To Allow Medical Examination Raises Negative Inference Against Her : Supreme Court

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal heard the case, in which the respondents filed an application under Section 47 of CPC after a decree was passed in the appellant’s favor, asserting their status as bona fide cultivating tenants to prevent their dispossession from the property.

In the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala, the Court observed that although the respondent had filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC—where the executing court is not required to adjudicate issues related to rights, interest, or title in the property—it would be treated as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, eliminating the need for a separate application under that provision.

Also Read – Every Document Pertaining To An Election Is Important, All Efforts Should Be Made To Preserve Them : Supreme Court

The Court reasoned that since the application under Section 47 CPC raises objections concerning rights in the property, which the executing court cannot determine after the decree has been passed, reclassifying it as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC would empower the executing court to adjudicate such issues. This approach aligns with the legal principle that the executing court cannot question the validity of the decree or go beyond its scope.

Also Read – Advocate Cannot Give Undertaking To Court Without Client’s Explicit Authority : Supreme Court

Applying the law to the facts, the Court observed that the respondents had claimed to be bona fide cultivating tenants to resist dispossession after the decree was passed—an issue they could have raised during the trial. Consequently, the Court treated their Section 47 application as one under Order 21 Rule 97 and adjudicated it under Rule 101. It ultimately held that the respondents had failed to establish an independent right to possession and that their objections were collusive, raised only after the decree was passed.

“In such circumstances referred to above the application of the respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 47 of the CPC bearing R.E.A. No. 163 of 2011 was in substance an application for determination of their possessory rights under Order XXI Rule 97.”, the Court observed.

Also From Judgment: Direct Courts To Dispose Execution Petitions Within 6 Months, Hold Presiding Officer Liable On Failure : Supreme Court Asks High Courts

Case Details: PERIYAMMAL (DEAD THR. LRS.) AND ORS Versus V. RAJAMANI AND ANR. ETC|SLP(C) No. 8490-8492/2020

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 293

Click here to read the judgment

hough revenue entries do not confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession, observed the Supreme Court in a recent judgment.

“Revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence,” the Court observed.

Also Read – Can CBI & SFIO Hold Simultaneous Investigations Into Offences Arising Out Of Same FIR? Supreme Court To Consider

The Court also reiterated that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of private citizens.

“Allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government,” observed a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale.

The observation was made in a judgment dismissing an appeal filed by the State of Haryana raising a claim of adverse possession against a property of private individuals.

Also Read – NDPS Act | Should Sample Be Drawn On Spot Or In Magistrate’s Presence As Per Sec. 52A? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

The private parties had filed a civil suit in 1981 in respect of a land measuring 18 Biswas Pukhta adjoining the National Highway 10, alleging that the Haryana Public Works Department had unauthorisedly occupied it. The State opposed the suit claiming that they had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land since 1879-80 and had perfected title through adverse possession.

The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. However, the first appellate court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit. In second appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court restored the decree, against which the State approached the Supreme Court.

Also Read – Bar Under Sec. 195 CrPC Not Attracted When High Court Has Directed Investigation Into Alleged Tampering : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that by claiming adverse possession, the State had impliedly admitted the title of the plaintiffs. The revenue record entries, sale deeds and mutation entries also established the title of the plaintiffs.

Rejecting the claim of adverse possession, the Supreme Court stated, “it is a fundamental principle that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of its own citizens.” Reference was made to the judgment in Vidya Devi v. State of H.P(2020) 2 SCC 569.

Also Read – Mere Breakup Of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Cannot Result In Criminal Proceedings : Supreme Court

The Court also held that the acts relied upon by the appellants—such as placing bitumen drums, erecting temporary structures, and constructing a boundary wall in 1980—do not constitute adverse possession.

“Adverse possession requires possession that is continuous, open, peaceful, and hostile to the true owner for the statutory period. In this case, the appellants’ possession lacks the element of hostility and the requisite duration,” the Court observed.

Appearances: Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee for the State; Senior Advocate Santhosh Paul for the respondents.

Case : The State of Haryana v. Amin Lal (Since deceased) through Legal Representatives

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 900

Click here to read the judgment