BABULAL versus RAJ KUMAR AND ORS.

BABULAL versus RAJ KUMAR AND ORS.

The executing court is required to adjudicate the right, title, or interest of an objector who was not a party to the decree for specific performance before ordering dispossession in execution, following the procedure in Order 21, Rules 98, 101, 102, and 103 of the CPC. Dispossession is not a prerequisite for objector's application under Order 21 Rule 97.

Parties
Appellant: Babulal; Respondent: Raj Kumar and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Rajasthan High Court Judgment Dated 9.5.95
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Executing Court Jurisdiction, Specific Performance, Determination of Objections in Execution Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Babulal

Appellant

Raj Kumar and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Rajasthan High Court Judgment Dated 9.5.95

  1. 1 Whether the executing court must adjudicate the right, title, or interest of an objector (not a party to the decree) before dispossession in execution of a decree for specific performance.
  2. 2 Whether an application under Order 21 Rule 97 is maintainable by a person not yet dispossessed.

Ratio Decidendi

The executing court is required to adjudicate the right, title, or interest of an objector who was not a party to the decree for specific performance before ordering dispossession in execution, following the procedure in Order 21, Rules 98, 101, 102, and 103 of the CPC. Dispossession is not a prerequisite for objector's application under Order 21 Rule 97.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Executing Court directed to enquire into the matter and record a finding after giving opportunity to the parties.
  • No costs imposed.