Question

In execution proceedings governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where property of the judgment-debtor is attached and a third party raises a claim asserting independent title, such claim:

• A. Can be decided only after completion of execution proceedings.
• B. Must be decided by instituting a separate civil suit.
• C. Shall be adjudicated by the executing court.
• D. Requires prior determination by the court which passed the decree.

Hint:

Order XXI CPC is a self-contained code for execution proceedings. Most disputes relating to attached property are decided by the executing court itself.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Concept: Execution is the process through which a successful litigant obtains the fruits of the decree passed in his favour. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contains detailed provisions relating to execution proceedings under Order XXI. Frequently, during execution proceedings, property belonging to the judgment-debtor is attached for satisfaction of the decree. Sometimes a third party claims that the attached property actually belongs to him and not to the judgment-debtor. The CPC provides a mechanism for resolving such disputes efficiently.

Step 1: Understanding third-party claims in execution proceedings.
When a decree-holder seeks attachment of property, a person other than the judgment-debtor may object to such attachment. The claimant may assert: Ownership Rights or Possessory Rights over the attached property. The purpose of such objection is to prevent wrongful sale or attachment of property belonging to someone other than the judgment-debtor.

Step 2: Examining the provisions of Order XXI CPC.
Order XXI Rule 58 empowers the executing court to investigate claims and objections relating to attached property. The law specifically authorizes the executing court to determine:

• Whether the claimant possesses an independent title.

• Whether the property is liable to attachment.

• Whether the attachment should continue or be released.
Thus, the CPC avoids unnecessary multiplicity of litigation by allowing the executing court itself to determine these issues.

Step 3: Applying the principle to the present question.
The law does not require the claimant to file a separate civil suit. Similarly, adjudication need not wait until the completion of execution proceedings. The executing court itself is competent to decide the claim. Therefore, \[ \boxed{\text{Option (C) is correct}} \]

Answer 2

This question turns on how the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 wants disputes that arise during execution to be resolved, so each option should be tested against the actual mechanism the Code provides for third-party claims over attached property.

1. Option A (decided only after execution proceedings are complete): Making a claimant wait until execution is over would leave the property in limbo and could result in it being sold before the ownership dispute is settled, defeating the purpose of raising the claim at all. Order XXI Rule 58 requires the claim to be investigated as soon as it is raised, not deferred to the end of execution, so this option does not reflect the law.
2. Option B (separate civil suit): Before the 2002 amendment to the CPC, a party dissatisfied with the order on a claim petition could file a fresh suit. That route was specifically removed by the amendment, and Order XXI Rule 58(4) now provides that the order of the executing court has the same force as a decree, appealable as such, rather than triggering a new suit. So this option describes the old position, not the current one.
3. Option C (executing court adjudicates): Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 47 of the CPC keeps every question relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree, including claims of independent title over attached property, within the same execution proceeding before the same court. This avoids parallel litigation and lets the court already familiar with the attachment resolve the dispute quickly.
4. Option D (prior determination by the court which passed the decree): The court that passed the decree may or may not be the same as the executing court, and the CPC does not require the claim to be routed back to the decree-passing court before the executing court can act on the attachment. This option adds a step the statute does not contain.

Only Option C tracks the statutory scheme built around Order XXI Rule 58 and Section 47, which channels third-party claims to the executing court itself rather than a separate suit, a later stage, or the original decree-passing court.

Hence, the correct answer is Option C: Shall be adjudicated by the executing court.