Execution is where decrees meet the real world — and sometimes meet a third party who says the property is not the judgment-debtor's to give. In Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf v. Mohammed Saleem, 2026 INSC 1122, decided on 14 October 2026, a bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria set aside orders of the executing court at Hyderabad and the Telangana High Court which had brushed aside a wakf's objection to execution of an ex parte specific performance decree, and remanded the matter for a full inquiry under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
An ex parte decree meets a wakf
The first respondent sued for specific performance of a 2001 agreement to sell shop property at Rikabgunj, Pathergatti, Hyderabad. The defendant never appeared, and in March 2015 the suit was decreed ex parte — sale deed, possession and costs. When execution was taken out in 2016 for physical possession, Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf stepped in as a third-party objector, tracing its title to a Farman of the Nizam, a Muntakhab of 1949, a 1976 trust deed and proceedings under the Waqf Act, 1995 culminating in a 2003 gazette notification.
The executing court dismissed the objection in 2019 — holding, among other things, that an objection framed under Order XXI Rule 58 did not lie against execution for possession and that the wakf had not proved the property was notified wakf property. The High Court affirmed, adding doubts about the trustee’s authority and gaps in linking municipal numbers to the gazetted shops. The Supreme Court has now unwound both orders.
The statutory scheme the Code prescribes
Relying on Periyammal v. V. Rajamani (2025), the Court emphasised that this adjudication must precede delivery of the property. A decree-holder cannot leapfrog a pending objection by seeking a fresh warrant of possession under Rule 35.
Why the remand matters
Strangers get a real trial
An objector claiming independent title is entitled to a full inquiry — pleadings, evidence, findings — not a summary brush-off on technical labels.
Labels do not defeat substance
That an objection cited Rule 58 rather than Rule 97 did not justify refusing the inquiry the Code mandates for possession executions.
Identity of property is central
Where title turns on old municipal and revenue records, the executing court must permit the parties to prove the linkage rather than resolving doubts against the objector at the threshold.
Takeaways for execution practice
- For decree-holders: an ex parte decree is only the beginning where third parties hold possession; budget for a contested Rule 97 inquiry and marshal title and identity evidence early.
- For objectors: file promptly, plead the independent right with documents, and seek adjudication under Rules 97 and 101 — the executing court is the forum, and its refusal to inquire is itself appealable.
- For both: the adjudication under Rule 98 or Rule 100 carries the force of a decree, so the inquiry is effectively a trial — treat the evidence accordingly.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Execution proceedings turn on their own records, and the judgment should be read in full before being relied upon.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can object to execution of a possession decree?
Any person in possession who claims an independent right, title or interest in the property — including a complete stranger to the decree — may resist or obstruct execution. Order XXI Rule 97 CPC then obliges the executing court to adjudicate that claim, and Rule 101 requires all questions of right, title and interest to be determined by that court itself, not relegated to a separate suit.
Can the decree-holder simply press for a fresh warrant of possession?
No. Following Periyammal v. V. Rajamani (2025), the Supreme Court reiterated that once an application under Rule 97 is made, the court must resolve the obstructionist's claim before the property is delivered. Seeking a fresh warrant under Rule 35 to bypass the pending objection is impermissible.
What had gone wrong in this case?
The wakf's objection — based on a Farman of the former Nizam, a 1949 Muntakhab, a trust deed and a 2003 gazette notification under the Waqf Act, 1995 — was dismissed without the full inquiry the Code requires, partly on the view that the objection was mislabelled and that the trustee lacked authority. The Supreme Court found the approach inconsistent with settled principles and ordered a fresh adjudication.
What must the executing court now do?
The matter goes back to the Senior Civil Judge at Hyderabad. Both sides may file additional pleadings and evidence, and the court must conduct a complete inquiry into rights, title and interest — including the identity of the property in the old municipal and revenue records — before deciding whether the decree-holder can take possession. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.