The Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026 titled Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory v. Kamal, by its order dated 23 April 2026 passed by Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court which had reversed the orders of the Executing Court and the First Appellate Court rejecting the objection filed by the mother of the judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The appellant had filed a suit in 2013 for specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit property. The suit was decreed on 24.07.2017 directing refund of Rs.1,45,00,000/- with 8% interest from the date of filing of the suit; the prayer for specific performance having been declined. When the refund was not made, the appellant filed an execution petition in which the suit property was attached in 2017. Several objections filed by the judgment debtor and his assignees were declined by the courts. The auction sale was eventually confirmed in favour of the decree holder.
Thereafter, the mother of the judgment debtor filed an objection claiming 1/3rd share in the property as joint family property. She asserted that she came to know of the suit and execution proceedings only on 06.02.2025, yet claimed to have been in continuous possession of the property. Both the Executing Court and the First Appellate Court found the objection not maintainable. In second appeal, the High Court reversed those orders.
The Supreme Court, after careful consideration of the facts and the impugned order, held that no substantial question of law arose in favour of the objector. The Court observed that the 2nd defendant company, in which both the judgment debtor and his mother were Directors, had remained ex-parte in the suit. The mother could not feign ignorance of the proceedings, especially when the attachment order was affixed on the property in 2017 and she had been residing there all along.
The Court found that the objection filed by the mother at a highly belated stage, when execution proceedings had been pending for nearly nine years and multiple earlier objections had already been rejected, was a deliberate attempt to frustrate the decree. The claim of joint family property was not supported by any prima facie material and was raised only when dispossession became imminent.
The Supreme Court restored the orders of the Executing Court and the First Appellate Court rejecting the objection filed by the mother. It directed that the property, if not already handed over, shall be expeditiously vacated and handed over to the appellant by the Executing Court.
The appeal stands allowed.
We find absolutely no reason to sustain the impugned order. The facts are clear and the objection was declined on a proper consideration of the same. The opportunity to lead evidence and prove the claim of co-ownership of the subject property has been proffered merely on a possibility of the claim being sustainable, especially when there was nothing produced to prima facie substantiate such a claim and the obvious facts being clearly against such a claim. On the above reasoning, we set aside the impugned order and restore the order of the Executing Court affirmed by the 1st Appellate Court, rejecting the objection. The property, if not handed over as yet shall be expeditiously vacated and handed over to the appellant by the Executing Court. The appeal stands allowed.
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 