Challani Ginning And Pressing Factory vs Kamal

2026 INSC 426 Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026

Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory ...Appellant Versus Kamal ...Respondent

ORDER

It is not lightly said that a litigant’s difficulties commence after

he obtains a decree. The suit filed in the year 2013 by the appellant

herein, for specific performance was decreed directing refund of an

amount of Rs.1,45,00,000/- with 8% interest from the date of filing of

suit; the prayer for specific performance having been declined. The

refund was not made as directed, and the appellant filed an

execution petition wherein the suit property was attached in the

year 2017. The objections filed by the Judgment Debtor (JD) and his

assignees subsequent to the attachment, obviously to frustrate the

recovery, were declined.

Signature Not Verified

2. The appellant was then faced with an objection filed by the Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2026.04.28 17:31:25 IST Reason:

mother of the judgment debtor claiming the property to be a joint Page 1 of 8 Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026 family property in which she has 1/3rd share along with the

judgment debtor and his brother. The respondent herein, the

objector, claimed that she came to know of the suit and the

execution proceedings only on 06.02.2025 when certain persons

came to the property in pursuance to the execution proceedings.

Despite the knowledge having been pinned to the year 2025, she

asserted that she was always in possession of the property since her

sons had moved to Bombay. The Execution Court and the First

Appellate Court found the objection to be not maintainable. In

second appeal, the High Court reversed the order passed under

Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against which

the present appeal is filed.

3. The facts leading to the execution proceedings have to be

noticed briefly. The suit filed in the year 2013 was decreed on

24.07.2017, the judgment in which is produced as Annexure RJ-1, in

the rejoinder filed by the appellant. The 1st defendant was the son of

the respondent and the 2nd defendant, a Private Limited Company

in which the 1st defendant and the present objector were Directors.

The plaintiff, the appellant herein, sought for specific performance

of the suit property based on an agreement of 2011 wherein part

consideration of Rs.1,45,00,000/- was paid by cheque to the account Page 2 of 8 Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026 of the 2nd defendant, out of the total sale consideration of

Rs.1,51,00,000/-. The 1st defendant took up a contention that there

was no sale intended and the agreement was a security for the loan

availed by the 2nd defendant company. It was also contended that

the loan was arranged through the brother of the 1st defendant who

was close to the partners of the appellant. It was found that the suit

property was mortgaged to the IDBI bank, which mortgage was

known to the plaintiff, recited in the sale agreement, which enables

the plaintiff only to the right of subrogation especially when the loan

for which the mortgage was created had not been repaid and the

bank had not been made a party to the suit. The prayer for specific

performance was declined but the recovery of the amounts paid was

directed from JD-1, the son of the respondent herein. The amounts

having not been paid, the decree holder filed an execution petition

on 08.08.2017 in which an attachment order was passed on

21.09.2017 which was affixed in a conspicuous part of the suit

property, which the objector claimed to have been in her

possession for long.

4. The auction having been first carried out, the confirmation of

sale was challenged by one Vienna Multiventure who was the

assignee from JD-1; the assignment itself being after the attachment. Page 3 of 8 Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026 The said assignee also mortgaged the property to the HDFC bank.

Both the assignee and the HDFC bank filed separate objections

which were declined by the Executing Court, confirmed up to the

Hon’ble Supreme Court. The auction sale though was set aside on

an objection by JD-1 after which again a sale proclamation was

made and the sale confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser who

was also the decree holder, by order dated 04.01.2025. A further

objection by JD-1 by way of two writ petitions was dismissed by the

High Court imposing a cost of Rs.75,000/-. The earlier attempts to

frustrate the recovery of money by sale of the property having

failed, the appellant contends the present objections were taken up

by the mother.

5. The High Court in the second appeal framed a question of law

as to whether the Executing Court erred in not framing issues and

permitting the appellant/objector to lead evidence to prove her

case that the auction property is a joint family property. Relying on

various decisions of this Court, the impugned order rightly found

Rule 97, 98, 99 and 101 of Order XXI having laid down a complete

code for resolving all disputes pertaining to execution, on an

objection being filed by a third party interested in the suit property,

without resorting to a separate suit, as brought about by the Page 4 of 8 Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026 amendment to the Civil Procedure Code in the year 1976. The High

Court found that the claim of 1/3rd share in the joint family properties

was natural insofar as JD-1 himself having inherited his father’s

business and the purchase of the subject property having been

made, possibly from the nucleus of the joint family business, which

had to be proved. It was also found that merely because two other

properties owned by the objector and her other son having been

transacted individually by them would not disentitle the objector,

especially since she is said to have been residing in the said

property. The contention raised of the objector having not raised

the plea when the attachment was affixed to the property was found

to be inconsequential insofar as the present objection having been

filed immediately after possession notice was issued and there was

a threat of dispossession.

6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the matter

especially after looking into the impugned order and the orders it

reversed. We are unable to find a substantial question of law having

arisen since the impugned order proceeds on mere surmises and

conjectures, the facts having dealt with in precision by the

Executing Court and the 1st Appellate Court. Admittedly, in the suit

filed for specific performance, the 2nd defendant who remained ex- Page 5 of 8 Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026 parte was the Company in which both JD-1 and the present objector

were Directors as evidenced from Annexure RJ-2 filed along with

the rejoinder. The specific defense was also that the amounts paid

as per the agreement was in fact a loan taken by the 2nd defendant

company to further its business. The objection of the mother

specifically contends that after her husband’s death in the year

1993, when her children were studying, she had taken care of the

business left behind by her husband and along with her sons, had

started various subsidiary companies wherein herself and her sons

were Directors. The objector cannot hence feign ignorance of the

suit, especially when notice was issued to the company who chose

not to appear. The defense taken by JD-1, the Director of the

company who was impleaded in his personal capacity was also that

the amounts paid by the plaintiff was a loan disbursed to the

company to secure which the sale agreement was executed.

7. The Executing Court and the Appellate Court have also found

that there were two other properties in the same locality. Plot no. 10,

belonging to the objector and plot no. 49 belonging to her other son;

transacted individually by them despite a claim having been now

raised by the objector that the properties acquired by the mother

and the brothers were acquired with the nucleus of the joint family Page 6 of 8 Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026 business. The other son had also entered into a similar transaction

based on which Special Civil Suit No. 26/2014 had also been

decreed in a like manner. It is also pertinent that the attachment in

the execution proceedings with respect to the property, which is the

subject matter of the present proceedings, being plot no. 11, was

affixed in a conspicuous part of the property on 21.09.2017. The

objector having asserted that she was all along residing in the said

property, cannot feign ignorance of the execution proceedings and

delay a proper objection being taken up till dispossession is

threatened. The suit was decreed in 2017, and the execution

proceedings are pending for the last nine years, when several

objections were raised, all of which stood declined. A further

objection by the mother of the original judgment debtor claiming

1/3rd share in the property at this stage, when all along the mother

and the sons were carrying on the business together, to further the

prospects of which, the loan admittedly was taken, is a deliberate

attempt to stall the recovery.

8. 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 Page 7 of 8 Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026 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.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..……….……………………. J.

(SANJAY KUMAR)

………..….…………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 23, 2026.

Page 8 of 8 Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2026