Bombay High Court

SHRIKRISHNA KACHARDAS SOMANI AND OTHERSversusJANARDHAN SHANKAR DHAS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

A decree holder who alienates the subject property loses the legal standing to continue execution of the decree.

Summary

The petitioners, Shri Krishna Kachardas Somani and others, challenged an order dated 19.03.2016 of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Shevgaon, which dismissed their execution petition on the ground that the decree holder had alienated the suit property during the pendency of the proceedings. The trial court held that once the decree holder sells their right, title, and interest in the property, they no longer have legal standing to pursue execution because the interest in the decree has passed to the purchaser. The petitioners argued that execution should continue despite the sale, contending that the decree holder's rights were not extinguished. The High Court examined the agreement of sale and found that the property sold was the exact same one subject to the execution, confirming the decree holder's voluntary divestment of rights. The Court concluded that the trial court’s decision was legally sound and that there was no merit in the petitioners' contention. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether a decree holder who alienates the suit property during pendency of execution proceedings retains the legal standing to continue execution of the decree

Subjects

execution of decree
alienation of property
legal standing
decree holder
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:10008



                                                                      39 WP No.1547.2017
                                                  -1-

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 1547 OF 2017

                       SHRIKRISHNA KACHARDAS SOMANI AND OTHERS
                                              VERSUS
                                   JANARDHAN SHANKAR DHAS
                                                  ...
              Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. B. A. Darak
              Advocate for Respondents : Mr. N. B. Narwade
                                                  ...
                                 CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                     Date : 4th March, 2026
              PER COURT :-


              1.          Heard learned counsel for respective sides.


              2.          The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2016

              passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Shevgaon below Exh.

              45 and 60 in R. D. No. 20 of 2006.


              3.          The learned Executing Court disposed of the Darkhast

              (execution petition) on the ground that the Decree Holder (DH) had

              alienated the suit property during the pendency of the proceedings. The

              Trial Court held that once the DH has sold their right, title, and interest

              in the property, they no longer possess the legal standing to pursue the

              execution further, as the interest in the decree has effectively passed out

              of their hands.
                                                         39 WP No.1547.2017
                                     -2-


4.            The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

execution should have continued despite the sale. However, upon a

careful perusal of the record and the specific Agreement to Sale

executed between the DH and the subsequent purchaser, it is evident

that the subject matter of the sale is the exact same property for which

the execution was filed. Since the DH has voluntarily divested

themselves of the property rights, the Trial Court’s decision to dispose of

the proceedings is legally sound.


5.            Therefore, I find no merit in the petitioner’s contention that

the execution can proceed in the absence of a subsisting legal interest in

the property.


6.            In view of the above observations, I find no error or

illegality in the order passed by the Executing Court.


7.            Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be

no order as to costs.


8.            Pending civil applications, if any, also stands disposed of.




                                           (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Omkar Joshi

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…