State Cannot Relitigate a Failed Title Claim Through Execution Objections: Punjab and Haryana High Court Ends 20-Year Obstruction to Final Decree
Case Name: State of Haryana through SDO (Civil), Loharu v. Neetu Dahiya
Date of Judgment: September 10, 2026
Citation: ESA Nos. 11 and 12 of 2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harkesh Manuja
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the State, having already instituted independent civil suits asserting that the decretal land formed part of government-owned Khasra No. 735, and having lost those suits after a full trial on evidence, could not resurrect the identical claim by filing third-party objections during execution. The earlier adjudication squarely attracted Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and barred the State from relitigating the question, whether through another suit or through objections under Order XXI Rules 97 to 99 CPC.
The Court emphasised that a third-party objector must independently establish a right, title or possession capable of defeating the decree-holder’s claim. The State had already received a complete opportunity to discharge that burden in its civil suits but failed to establish any connection between the decretal property and Khasra No. 735. Execution proceedings could not be converted into another round of litigation over a title claim that had been tried and finally rejected.
The Court further held that general allegations that the decree had been procured by fraud were legally insufficient. Fraud must be pleaded with complete particulars and established through specific evidence, as required by Order VI Rule 4 CPC. A demarcation report procured unilaterally by the SDO without an order of the Executing Court and without notice to the decree-holder could not displace findings returned in fully contested judicial proceedings.
Summary: The dispute concerned Plot Nos. 128 and 129 situated in village Loharu. The predecessors of the respondent-decree-holder instituted civil suits in 2003 against Gram Panchayat, Loharu, seeking permanent injunction against interference with their possession. Their title was founded upon a Kabala dated April 4, 1942, executed by the then Nawab of Loharu in favour of their predecessor, Bhikraj Jaipuria.
Both suits were decreed on November 12, 2005. The Civil Court found that the plaintiffs’ predecessor had purchased the plots under the Kabala and that the plaintiffs had inherited the property and were owners in possession. The Gram Panchayat failed to produce any document supporting its competing claim. Its first appeals were dismissed, followed by dismissal of its regular second appeals by the High Court on December 19, 2007. The decrees accordingly attained finality.
Neetu Dahiya subsequently purchased the properties through a registered sale deed dated March 14, 2019 and, after being substituted as decree-holder, continued the execution proceedings for delivery of possession. Over the years, however, the execution was repeatedly opposed by the Gram Panchayat, the Municipal Committee, vegetable vendors, other private objectors and eventually the State of Haryana.
The State filed objections under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC, claiming that the decretal land formed part of Khasra No. 735 belonging to the State and that a government primary school had existed over a portion of it since 1918. It alleged that the decrees had been procured by fraud because the decree-holders were never in possession. The State also relied upon a demarcation report dated April 10, 2021, obtained pursuant to an order of the SDO (Civil), Loharu.
The Executing Court dismissed the objections on July 12, 2023. The first appellate court affirmed that decision on September 29, 2023 while directing that execution over any portion falling within the government school premises be conducted in the presence of the District Elementary Education Officer and the Tehsildar. The State challenged these concurrent orders through execution second appeals.
Before the High Court, the State argued that a decree for permanent injunction could not be executed through a warrant of possession and that the Executing Court had travelled beyond the decree. It reiterated its ownership claim over Khasra No. 735, alleged fraud and complained that it had not been permitted to lead evidence.
The High Court held that the controversy regarding the mode of execution did not assist the State. As a stranger to the original decree claiming an independent title, the State was first required to establish a right, title or possession strong enough to defeat the decree-holder’s claim. The decisive issue was therefore not the mode of execution between the decree-holder and the original judgment-debtors, but whether the State had proved its independent title.
The Court found that the State had previously instituted Civil Suit Nos. 342 and 347 of 2013 to set aside the same decrees on the identical ground that the properties formed part of Khasra No. 735. Both suits were contested on evidence and dismissed upon a specific finding that the State had failed to connect the decretal land with Khasra No. 735. The appellate proceedings also failed, with the litigation concerning Plot No. 128 ultimately reaching the Supreme Court, where the special leave petition was dismissed on July 3, 2023.
In view of this complete adjudicatory history, the High Court held that Section 11 CPC squarely prohibited the State from raising the same title claim again during execution. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sharada Sanghi v. Asha Agarwal, 2026 INSC 292, the Court observed that relitigation may constitute an abuse of process even where the strict requirements of res judicata are not satisfied. The State’s case stood on an even weaker footing because its earlier suits had not merely been dismissed in default; they had been fully tried and decided against it on merits.
The allegation of fraud was also rejected because the objections contained no specific particulars or supporting evidence. The Court relied upon Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai, AIR 1951 SC 280, to reiterate that general allegations, however strongly worded, do not amount to a legally sustainable plea of fraud.
The State’s demarcation report of April 10, 2021 was found unreliable because it had been procured by the SDO through revenue officials without any authorisation from the Executing Court and without notice to the decree-holder. It could not be used against the decree-holder, particularly when the State’s title claim had already been rejected in fully contested proceedings.
The contention that the State was denied an opportunity to lead evidence was equally rejected. Its separate application seeking the framing of issues had been dismissed on January 17, 2023, but that appealable order was never challenged and had attained finality.
The High Court expressed concern that the decree-holder had remained unable to obtain the fruits of decrees passed in 2005 despite successive challenges by differently described objectors. It observed that each challenge had travelled through trial and appellate stages and had failed. A succession of objections raising variants of an already rejected claim could not be permitted to substitute a right of appeal that had never been successfully exercised. The Court pertinently observed that the finality of a decree would mean little if its execution could be indefinitely deferred merely by introducing a new objector whenever the previous one was turned away.
The Court declined to direct another demarcation because the claim concerning Khasra Nos. 734 and 735 had already been raised repeatedly and had failed for want of proof. It nevertheless preserved the specific safeguard concerning the seven-foot portion of Plot No. 129 reported to fall beneath the government primary school by directing that execution over that portion continue in the presence of the District Elementary Education Officer and the Tehsildar.
Decision: The High Court dismissed both execution second appeals after finding that no substantial question of law arose. The orders dated July 12, 2023 and September 29, 2023 dismissing the State’s third-party objections were upheld.