LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Periyammal (Dead) Through LRS & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr. Etc.

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 329Decided 6 Mar 2025
C.A. No.-003640-003642 - 2025 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 8490-8492 of 2020)
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice Pankaj Mithal

Background

In 1980, the appellants' father agreed to buy land from two vendors, who later refused to execute the sale deed, leading to a decades-long specific-performance suit that the appellants' predecessor eventually won, all the way up through this Court by 2006. Two other men, claiming to be cultivating tenants in possession of the land since the 1960s-70s (allegedly inducted by the vendors to obstruct delivery), resisted handing over possession even after a sale deed was executed in the appellants' favour, obtained revenue records supporting their claimed possession, and successfully persuaded the executing court and the Madras High Court that the decree could not be executed against them without separate proceedings.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the two men's claimed possession as "cultivating tenants" was not an independent right surviving the vendors' loss of title, but rather the product of apparent collusion between them and the vendors to frustrate the decree-holders, noting the vendors themselves had supported the men's tenancy claim only after ceasing to be owners. Since they could not show a bona fide, independent right of possession or genuine protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, 1955, the executing court had no basis to refuse delivery of possession to the decree-holders, and the High Court's contrary order was an "egregious error." The Court allowed the appeals, set aside both the High Court and executing court orders, directed police-assisted delivery of possession within two months, and additionally issued nationwide directions (reiterating its earlier Rahul S. Shah guidelines) requiring all executing courts to dispose of execution proceedings within six months and requiring High Courts to monitor and report on pendency of execution cases.

Lesson Learnt

A decree-holder's right to the fruits of a long-fought judgment cannot be indefinitely frustrated by third parties colluding with the losing side to manufacture a fresh "possession" defence at the execution stage; and executing courts across India are now under a reiterated Supreme Court mandate to resolve execution petitions within six months.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case