Executing Court Must Decide Third-Party Title Claims Under Order XXI Rules 97–101 CPC; Separate Suit Barred, Tax Receipts Do Not Prove Ownership: Supreme Court

Case Name: Balakrishna (Dead) Thr. LRs. v. G.N. Kanniah Naidu (Dead) Thr. LRs. and Another

Date of Judgment: 26 October 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 1155

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva.

Held: The Supreme Court held that an application under Order XXI Rules 97–101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is on par with a regular suit, and the executing court must adjudicate the questions of right, title and interest arising therein. A claimant resisting dispossession cannot be relegated to a separate suit when Rule 101 expressly bars that course. The Court further held that payment of property taxes may, at best, support an inference of possession, but does not establish title. On the evidence, it upheld Balakrishna’s ownership under the original Hakkupatra and declared his legal representatives the lawful owners and possessors of the disputed property.

Summary: The dispute concerned Site No. 261 at Munnekolala New Extension, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru. G.N. Kanniah Naidu had instituted a suit against Srikanta Rao seeking declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction, claiming allotment under a Hakkupatra dated 5 January 1972. He alleged that Rao had trespassed upon the property and erected a temporary hut. Although Naidu did not produce the original allotment document, the trial court acted upon its photocopy and decreed his claims for title and possession in October 1999.

When Naidu sought execution, Balakrishna resisted delivery of possession through an application under Order XXI Rules 97–101 CPC. Claiming an independent allotment under a Hakkupatra bearing the same date, he asserted that he and his son had constructed a house on the property and that three shops in its front portion had been let out. His son, Ananda, produced Balakrishna’s original Hakkupatra in evidence. The executing court nevertheless dismissed the application, and the Karnataka High Court affirmed that decision.

The Supreme Court sharply criticised the High Court’s view that the executing court had limited jurisdiction to examine the claim and that Balakrishna should have approached a civil court separately. Describing this approach as reflecting “total non-application of mind” to the statutory scheme, the Court explained that proceedings under Order XXI Rules 97–101 permit substantive adjudication of competing claims. Relying on Shreenath v. Rajesh, (1998) , and N.S.S. Narayana Sarma v. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd., (2002) , it reiterated that an order deciding such an application is appealable as a regular first appeal.

The Court also rejected the criticism that Balakrishna had failed to challenge the decree earlier. Knowledge of litigation concerning a property could not simply be attributed to a person claiming possession who had not been impleaded. Such a person could become aware of the decree only when execution was attempted against him.

On title, the Court found that both courts below had failed to give due weight to Balakrishna’s original Hakkupatra. Naidu, by contrast, had relied upon a photocopy in the original suit, claiming that the Tahsildar had taken back his original document because of multiple allotments. His attempt to introduce a certified copy of that photocopy in the execution proceedings had failed, and he took no further steps.

The Court also relied on Naidu’s admission that Balakrishna had constructed a ground-and-first-floor RCC house with three shops on the property. That admission undermined Naidu’s pleaded account of Rao having trespassed and erected a hut, particularly when Naidu could not explain Balakrishna’s possession and construction. Sporadic tax payments by the rival claimants could not determine ownership in the face of the original title document.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment.