Supreme Court Orders Execution of Property Possession in Long-Pending Case

The Supreme Court recently delivered a significant ruling in Periyammal (Dead) Through LRS & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr., a case concerning the execution of a property sale decree that had been delayed for decades due to legal complexities and obstruction. The Court’s judgment brings clarity to the execution of decrees related to specific performance and possession, ensuring that decree holders do not face endless litigation to realize their rights.

Background of the Case

The case traces back to a sale agreement dated June 30, 1980, between Ayyavoo Udayar (the original plaintiff) and the vendors, Ramanujan and Jagadeesan. The agreement was for the sale of a property for ₹67,000, with an earnest amount of ₹10,000 paid upfront. The balance was to be paid by November 15, 1980, but the vendors refused to execute the sale deed despite repeated requests.

As a result, Ayyavoo Udayar filed O.S. No. 514 of 1983 before the Subordinate Judge, Salem, seeking specific performance and possession of the property. The suit included V. Rajamani and another (Respondents 1 & 2), who were in possession of the property, allegedly to obstruct the execution of the sale.

Key Legal Proceedings

On April 2, 1986, the trial court decreed in favor of Ayyavoo Udayar, directing the vendors to execute the sale deed and hand over possession.
The vendors appealed, but the High Court modified the decree slightly while affirming the relief of specific performance.
After multiple appeals, the Supreme Court finally dismissed the vendors’ petition on January 20, 2006, confirming the decree in favor of the plaintiffs.
Despite the decree, execution of the sale deed and delivery of possession faced resistance from Respondents 1 & 2, who claimed independent possession.

Arguments by the Appellants (Decree Holders)

The respondents were nephews of the vendors and were colluding with them to obstruct the execution of the decree.
The respondents never contested the original suit and allowed it to proceed ex parte, making their later objections untenable.
The respondents falsely claimed cultivating tenancy rights, which they had never asserted before.
The respondents secured a possession certificate from revenue authorities in 2008, despite the fact that the property had already been transferred via a court-executed sale deed in 2007.

Arguments by the Respondents

The decree was obtained without their knowledge, and no notice was served to them in execution proceedings.
They had been in continuous possession of the property since 1967 and were protected under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act, 1955.
The execution petition failed to specifically seek possession against them, rendering any possession order invalid.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Key Observations

On Delay in Execution

“The seeker of justice many a time has to take long circuitous routes, both on account of hierarchy of courts and procedural law. Such persons are dragged till the last ladder for receiving justice. Even after one reaches the stage of final decree, he has to undergo a long distance in the execution proceedings before he receives the bowl of justice.”

On Rights of Decree Holders

“What flows from the position of law is that the issues that ought to have been raised in the original suit cannot be determined by the executing court. The benefit of Section 47 cannot be availed to conduct a retrial, causing failure in realization of the fruits of the decree.”

On Collusion Between the Vendors and Respondents

“It is incomprehensible why a notice was sent to the vendors by the revenue authorities in 2008 when the title of the suit property had already been transferred to the decree holders. The vendors’ ‘no objection’ to the respondents’ possession certificate is nothing but an apparent collusion to frustrate the decree.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court directed:

The executing court must ensure vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property is handed over to the appellants within two months.
If necessary, police assistance should be used to enforce the decree.
All High Courts must take steps to expedite execution proceedings, ensuring compliance with Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021), which mandates execution completion within six months.

Implications of the Judgment

Expedited Execution of Decrees: The ruling reinforces the principle that decree holders should not suffer due to procedural delays.
Limited Scope for Execution Challenges: The Court clarified that objections to execution must be based on events post-decree, not matters that could have been raised in the original suit.
Prevention of Collusion: This case sets a precedent that courts will scrutinize claims of possession made after the passing of a decree to prevent fraudulent obstruction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is a significant step toward strengthening the rights of decree holders. By directing the immediate execution of the decree and emphasizing accountability in execution proceedings, the judgment upholds the fundamental principle that justice delayed is justice denied.

Petitioner Name: Periyammal (Dead) Through LRS & Ors..
Respondent Name: V. Rajamani & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice J. B. Pardiwala, Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Place Of Incident: Salem, Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 06-03-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: periyammal-(dead)-th-vs-v.-rajamani-&-anr.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-06-03-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Debt Recovery
See all petitions in Judgment by J.B. Pardiwala
See all petitions in Judgment by Pankaj Mithal
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category