Executing court must decide obstruction claims on merits; prior proceedings cannot defeat an independent title claim without adjudication.

Under Order 21 Rules 97, 98, 100, 101, 103 and 104 CPC, an executing court must adjudicate all questions of right, title and interest raised in an obstruction proceeding, and that determination is conclusive between the parties. Prior proceedings cannot be used to summarily reject the objector's independent claim unless he was conclusively bound by them. Because the appellant and his father were not parties to the suit and no adverse finding had been recorded against them in the writ proceedings, the decree did not automatically bind the appellant. The executing court was required to examine whether the claimed land fell within the decree and whether the decree-holder was attempting to encroach beyond the sale certificates.

---

---

Issues: Whether an executing court, when faced with an obstruction claim under Order 21, Rule 97, must adjudicate the objector's independent claim to right, title and interest in the property and whether prior proceedings to which the objector was not conclusively bound could be used to reject the objection without such adjudication.

Analysis: The scheme of Order 21, Rules 97, 98, 100, 101, 103 and 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires the executing court to decide all questions of right, title and interest arising between the parties to the obstruction proceeding, and the determination is meant to be conclusive as between them. The remedy is intended to replace separate suits and to secure expeditious and final adjudication in execution. Since the appellant and his father were not parties to the suit and no adverse finding had been recorded against them in the writ proceedings, the decree could not automatically bind the appellant. The executing court was therefore required to examine whether the land claimed by the appellant formed part of the property covered by the decree and whether the decree-holder was trenching upon property not covered by the sale certificates.

Conclusion: The objection could not be rejected summarily on the basis of the earlier suit or writ proceedings, and the executing court was bound to adjudicate the appellant's claim on merits.

---