Person Deriving Possession From Judgment-Debtor Not A "Third Party" Or "Stranger To Decree": Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Such possession, being derived from and traceable to the judgment-debtor, does not make the appellant a "third party" or "stranger to the decree" under Order 21 Rule 97/99 CPC." Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that an individual whose possession is derived from and traceable to a judgment-debtor cannot file third-party objections under Order 21 Rule 97 or Rule 99 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

A bench of Justice Harkesh Manuja observed that the statutory protections available to strangers to a decree apply only when the objector sets up an independent right, title, or interest that is completely unconnected with the judgment-debtor.

The matter stems from a partition suit filed in 2008 concerning a property owned by a partnership firm. After the suit was decreed in 2015 in favour of the plaintiff, execution proceedings were initiated. The son of the original judgment-debtor, who had never impleaded himself during the trial, filed objections in the execution proceedings claiming independent tenancy rights over the property. The executing court and the first appellate court dismissed these objections, prompting the present Execution Second Appeal.

The primary question before the court was whether a family member claiming unproven tenancy rights, whose possession is merely permissible through the judgment-debtor, can maintain third-party objections to resist the execution of a partition decree. The court was also called upon to determine if executing courts are bound to conduct a full adjudication of such objections when they appear collusive and lack prima facie substantiation.

Derived Possession Is Not An Independent Right

The court carefully examined the nature of the appellant's possession and found that he failed to prove his status as an independent tenant. At best, his possession was permissible and derived through his father, the original judgment-debtor. The bench clarified that such derived possession, which amounts to nothing more than that of a licensee, strips the objector of the right to be treated as a stranger to the decree.

"The judgments relied upon by the appellant apply only where a stranger to the decree sets up an independent right, title or interest, unconnected with the judgment-debtor."

Vague Pleas And Lack Of Prima Facie Substantiation

Rejecting the tenancy claim as entirely vague, the court noted that the objection petition lacked basic details such as the date, month, or year of the tenancy's inception. There was no pleading to show that the property was legally rented out to the appellant by the partnership firm or that his father was authorised to do so. Applying the Supreme Court's mandate in Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory v. Kamal, the court affirmed that objections lacking prima facie substantiation can be outright rejected.

Duty To Exercise Due Diligence During Trial

The court strongly deprecated the conduct of the appellant, noting that despite having full knowledge of the partition suit since 2008, he chose to remain a "fence-sitter." Placing reliance on the Supreme Court's directives in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, the bench emphasised that executing courts must not entertain third-party applications in a mechanical manner. The court noted that issues which could have been raised during the adjudication of the suit itself should not be entertained at the execution stage.

Collusive Design To Frustrate Execution

Highlighting the close relationship between the appellant and the judgment-debtors, the court observed that the multiplicity of litigation generated by the family was a calculated design to obstruct execution. The bench pointed out that the objections were raised more than seven years after the partition decree, demonstrating a clear intent to delay rather than a genuine assertion of independent rights.

"The overall conduct of the appellant does not inspire confidence in the bona fides of his claim. The close relationship between the appellant and the judgment-debtors, being father and sons... all point towards a collusive design between the appellant and the judgment-debtors to obstruct and delay execution."

Incidental Findings Do Not Revive Claims

Addressing the appellant's reliance on a pending Regular Second Appeal arising from a separate injunction suit, the court clarified that mere pendency of an appeal cannot revive an unsubstantiated tenancy claim. The court noted that the findings on tenancy in that auxiliary suit were incidental and could not be treated as a substantive declaratory finding. Quoting Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. v. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd., the bench firmly concluded that procedural complications cannot be allowed to act as a legal trap for litigants who have successfully obtained a decree.

Finding no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the concurrent findings of the courts below, the High Court dismissed the Execution Second Appeal. The ruling establishes that family members cannot use derivative possession as a tool to frustrate the execution of long-standing civil decrees through frivolous third-party objections.

Date of Decision: 06 July 2026