Tahir V. Isani v. Madan Waman Chodankar (Since Deceased) Through Legal Representatives and Others, 2025
The Court provided an authoritative interpretation of Rule 102 CPC, emphasizing that its object is to prevent collusive or fraudulent transfers by judgment-debtors to frustrate decree execution.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
29 August 2025
Judges
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The Appellant, Tahir V. Isani, acquired the suit property by a registered sale deed in 2007 from M/s Rizvi Estate and Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
-
Rizvi Estate had acquired the property in 1988 from the original owner, Mrs. Misquita.
-
The respondents obtained a decree in Special Civil Suit No. 97/1996/B for possession against the Maliks, who were not the sellers of the Appellant.
-
The Appellant raised objections under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, asserting independent title and possession.
-
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Appellant’s objections, holding that Order XXI Rule 102 CPC barred the claim. The matter was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
-
Whether a person who derives title from a third party (not the judgment-debtor) is barred from objecting to execution under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC?
-
Whether the Appellant, who purchased the property during the pendency of the original suit but not from the judgment-debtor, can raise objections to the execution of the decree?
-
What is the scope and intent of Order XXI Rule 102 CPC and how it applies to transferees not deriving title from the judgment-debtor?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Bombay High Court’s order.
-
The Court held that the bar under Rule 102 applies only to those transferees who trace their title from the judgment-debtor, and not to those who derive title from independent third parties.
-
The Appellant's transferor (M/s Rizvi Estate) was not a party to the original suit and held title since 1988, well before the decree.
-
Therefore, Rule 102 CPC does not apply, and the Appellant is entitled to raise objections under Rules 97 and 101 of Order XXI CPC.
-
The Court directed the executing court to conduct a proper enquiry under the CPC and adjudicate the Appellant’s claim.
Held
-
The bar under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC is limited to transferees pendente lite from the judgment-debtor.
-
A person who receives the property from a third party—not a party to the suit—can raise objections to the execution of the decree.
-
The Appellant's transferor, Rizvi Estate, was not a party to the suit and held title from an earlier owner.
-
Therefore, the objection was maintainable, and the Executing Court is to decide the matter on merits.
-
The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the executing court for further proceedings.
Analysis
-
The Court provided an authoritative interpretation of Rule 102 CPC, emphasizing that its object is to prevent collusive or fraudulent transfers by judgment-debtors to frustrate decree execution.
-
However, this protective bar does not extend to bonafide purchasers from third parties.
-
The Court clarified that even if a third-party transferee acquires the property during pendency of a suit, the bar under Rule 102 CPC does not apply, as long as the title is not traced from the judgment-debtor.
-
The ruling protects the rights of bonafide third-party purchasers, ensures fair play, and discourages a blanket application of Rule 102.
-
The Court upheld the importance of independent adjudication of objections under Rules 97–101, reinforcing due process rights.