LexPERIYAMMAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS. versus V. RAJAMANI & ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 540 : 2025 INSC 329 Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr. Etc. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025) 06 March 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the courts below committed any error in upholding the objections raised by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein against execution of the decree on the claim of being in possession of the suit property in their capacity as cultivating tenants; Whether the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to the protection of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act, 1955 and could the Executing Court have decided the question of validity of the decree on this ground. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.47; Or. XXI, rr.97, 101 – Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act, 1955 – Objection raised by Respondent nos.1 and 2 against execution of the decree claiming to be in possession of the suit property in their capacity as cultivating tenants, upheld by courts below – Respondent nos.1 and 2, if entitled to the protection of the 1955 Act and whether the Executing Court could have decided the question of validity of the decree on this ground: Held: The decree in favour of the appellants granting specific performance with possession was affirmed by the High Court and the SLP against the order of the High Court also stood dismissed – Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 chose not to contest the original suit before the ASJ – They did not appear even before the High Court and Supreme Court in the appeals filed by the vendors (judgment debtors) – Further, the issues that ought to have been raised by the parties during the adjudication of the original suit cannot be determined by the executing court as such adjudication may undermine the decree itself – Respondent nos.1 and 2 could have filed a joint written statement stating that * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 541 Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr. Etc. they are cultivating tenants at the stage of the original suit itself, but rather they raised the said issue in the form of objections at the stage of execution – Furthermore, respondent nos.1 and 2 failed to produce any documentary evidence as regards their claim of being cultivating tenants, even at the stage of their s.47 application – Present is a case of collusion between the vendors and the respondent nos.1 and 2 (nephews of the vendors), to deprive the appellants from availing the fruits of the decree in their favour – Even otherwise, the respondent nos.1 and 2 cannot claim protection of the special legislation of 1955 for the period during which they were not registered as tenants cultivating the suit properties – The certificate that they are in possession of the suit properties since 1974 does not establish any independent right of possession in their favour – Further, the certificate itself appears to have been obtained in collusion with the vendors who at the time of giving “no objection” had ceased to be the owners of the suit property – Respondent nos.1 and 2 are not the bona fide cultivating tenants of the suit property – Thus, 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 – The rejection by the High Court of the amendments to the execution petition filed by the appellants was erroneous, set aside – Impugned order and the order passed by the Executing Court, set aside. [Paras 60, 63-65, 68-71] Directions by Supreme Court – Inordinate delay by the Executing Courts in deciding execution petitions: Held: In view of the direction in Rahul S. Shah case requiring the execution proceedings to be completed within six months from the date of filing, High Courts across the country to call for the necessary information from their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of the execution petitions – High Courts 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 – The data along with the figures of pendency and disposal thereafter collected by all the High Courts to be forwarded to the Registry of the Supreme Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.