"It is said that the woes for the litigants in this country start once they are able to obtain a decree in their favour and are unable to execute and reap its fruits for years together."
-Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Supreme Court of India, March6, 2025
In Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. vs. V. Rajamani & Anr. Etc. (2025 INSC 329), the Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal set aside the judgement dated December 18, 2019 by Justice R. Pongiappan of Madras High Court and the order passed by First Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, the Executing Court. The High Court had passed its judgement upon hearing the Civil Revision Petition filed under under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking setting aside of the fair and Decreetal order dated August 12, 2011 made in R.E.A. case of 2011 in R.E.P. case of 2004 in O.S. case of 1983 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem pertaining to an agreement of sale dated June 30, 1980. Both the Courts' had rejected the application filed by the appellants seeking amendment in the execution petition.
One Ayyavoo Udayar, the father of the appellants entered into an agreement of sale dated June 30, 1980 with Ramanujan and Jagadeesan, the respondent nos. 3 and 4, the vendors respectively, whereby the respondents agreed to sell the property under dispute, the “suit property” for Rs. 67,000/-. An earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by Ayyavoo Udayar while entering the agreement of sale. It was agreed between the parties that the balance of Rs. 57,000/- would be paid on or before November 15, 1980 upon receipt of which, the vendors would execute the sale deed. On November 15, 1980, Ayyavoo Udayar issued a telegram to the vendors requesting that they should receive the balance consideration and execute the sale deed. The vendors sent a reply stating that they would execute the sale deed on November 20, 1980, but, no sale deed was executed even on the said date. Since the vendors did not come forward to execute the sale deed despite notice and talks of settlement, Ayyavoo Udayar was compelled to file the O.S. in 1983 before the Subordinate Judge, Salem praying for specific performance of agreement of sale i.e. the execution and registration of the sale deed in respect of the suit properties and delivery of actual physical possession of the same. The relief prayed for in the plaint by the original plaintiff Ayyavoo Udayar is as under:
“Therefore the plaintiff prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to pass a decree for specific
performance.
(a) Directing the defendants 1 and 2 to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the entire suit properties for the sum of Rs. 67,000/- and deliver actual possession of the entire suit properties to the plaintiff, and if the defendants 1 and 2 fail to execute the sale deed;
(b) The Court may be pleased to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the entire suit properties for Rs. 67,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and order delivery of possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff;
(c) Directing the defendants 1 and 2 to pay the costs of the suit;
(d) Directing the defendants 1 and 2 to deduct the value of the trees cut by them after the date of the suit agreement;
(e) Granting such other relief or reliefs as the court may deem fit and necessary under the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”
Besides V. Rajamani, the three other respondents were:E. Ethirajulu, Ramanujam and Jagadeesan respectively.
Supreme Court's 78-page long judgement on dated March 6, 2025 reads:"The Executing Court shall now proceed to ensure that vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property is handed over to the appellants in their capacity as decree holders and if necessary, with the aid of police. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from today without fail."
The judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala reads: "we direct all the High Courts across the country to call for the necessary information from their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of the execution petitions. Once the data is collected by each of the High Courts, the High Courts shall thereafter proceed to issue an administrative order or circular, directing their respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and disposed of within a period of six months without fail otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side. Once the entire data along with the figures of pendency and disposal thereafter, is collected by all the High Courts, the same shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court with individual reports. Registry is directed to forward one copy each of this judgment to all the High Courts at the earliest. The Registry shall notify this matter once again after seven months only for the purpose of reporting compliance of the directions issued by us referred to above." The compliance with the judgement will be ascertained in the first week of October 2025.
The Court recalled the mandatory direction contained in para 42.12 of Supreme Court's decision in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418 requiring the execution proceedings to be completed within six months from the date of filing, which has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in its order in Bhoj Raj Garg vs. Goyal Education and Welfare Society & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 19654 of 2022.
Supreme Court observed:“A harmonious reading of Section 47 with Order XXI Rule 101 implies that questions relating to right, title or interest in a decretal property must be related to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The import of such a reading of the provisions is that only matters arising subsequent to the passing of the decree can be determined by an executing court under Section 47 and Order XXI Rule 101.”
The judgment underlines that there is no question of deciding the validity of the Decree on the ground of being a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to evict cultivating tenants in this case. It pointed out how “… the High Court committed an egregious error in passing the impugned order. We must now ensure that the appellants are able to reap the fruits of the decree. We are also of the view that the rejection by the High Court of the amendments to the execution petition filed by the appellants, was erroneous and deserves to be set aside”.
No comments:
Post a Comment