Executing court inquiry under Order XXI Rule 58 must focus on possession, not title, before rejecting an objection petition.

In proceedings under Order XXI Rule 58, the executing court must first determine who was in possession on the date of attachment and whether the objector held the property on his own account or in trust; it cannot decide title or superiority of claim at that stage. Here, the court misdirected itself by focusing on the decree-holders' alleged superior claim and a supposed statutory charge, without properly enquiring into possession or the tenants' status. The revision was maintainable under Section 115 because the error was jurisdictional and involved failure to exercise the inquiry required by law. The rejection of the objection petition was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision after proper inquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the executing court, in proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 58, properly investigated the objection by directing itself to possession and the other matters relevant under Rules 59 to 61, or acted with jurisdictional error and material irregularity; (ii) Whether the civil revision was maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order rejecting the objection petition.

Issue (i): Whether the executing court, in proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 58, properly investigated the objection by directing itself to possession and the other matters relevant under Rules 59 to 61, or acted with jurisdictional error and material irregularity.

Analysis: The inquiry under Order XXI, Rule 58 is summary and is primarily concerned with whether, on the date of attachment, the property was in the possession of the judgment-debtor or the objector, and if in the objector's possession, whether it was on his own account or in trust. Questions of title or superiority of claim are not to be decided in such proceedings. The executing court instead focused on whether the decree-holders had a superior claim and on the alleged statutory charge, without first determining who was in possession and on whose behalf the tenants were occupying the land. The record showed that tenants were in possession and that the objectors had registered sale deeds giving them an interest in the property. The court also erred in treating the compromise decree as creating a charge and in applying Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act without foundation on the facts.

Conclusion: The objection was not properly investigated under Order XXI, Rule 58, and the executing court acted with jurisdictional error and material irregularity.

Issue (ii): Whether the civil revision was maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order rejecting the objection petition.

Analysis: Revisional interference is available where the subordinate court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, or acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. Since the executing court asked itself the wrong question, failed to take into account the matters required by Order XXI, Rules 58 to 61, and did not conduct the proper inquiry into possession, the error was jurisdictional rather than a mere error of fact or law within jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The revision was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting the objection petition was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh decision according to law after a proper inquiry into possession and the relevant circumstances under Order XXI.

---