ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Execution — Stay of Auction — Conditional Stay — Joint Family Property Plea — Article 227 Jurisdiction Where decree for recovery of money has not been stayed in appeal, decree-holder is entitled to proceed with execution. Lower Appellate Court is justified in granting stay of auction subject to deposit of part of decretal amount. Mere plea that attached property is joint family/ancestral property, without independent claims by other coparceners, cannot defeat execution. High Court under Article 227 may modify condition of deposit to balance equities but will not interfere with discretionary order unless perverse or illegal. (Paras 3–6) FACTUAL MATRIX Suit: O.S. No.72/2018 for recovery of money — decreed on 31.01.2020. Appeal: A.S. No.7/2021 filed by defendants — no stay of decree granted. Execution: E.P. No.21/2023 — execution court attached property and ordered auction on 09.12.2025. Application: I.A. No.968/2025 seeking stay of execution — allowed by appellate court subject to deposit of 50% decretal amount + costs. Revision: Defendants challenged deposit condition alleging property was joint family property. ⚖️ ISSUES CONSIDERED Whether attachment and auction can proceed when appeal is pending without stay? Whether plea of joint family/ancestral property bars execution? Scope of interference under Article 227 against conditional stay order? ANALYSIS OF LAW & REASONING 1. Right of Decree-Holder to Execute The Court reaffirmed settled principle: In absence of stay of decree, decree-holder is entitled to execute decree. (Para 5) Hence execution proceedings and auction were lawful. 2. Joint Family Property Plea — Rejected Court held: No other coparceners filed claim petitions. No independent objections by alleged co-owners. Therefore plea is unsupported and speculative. Even if joint family property, in absence of rival claimants it can be presumed that property has fallen to JDRs' share or that they are sole legal heirs. (Para 5) Thus, execution cannot be stalled on such unsubstantiated plea. 3. Conditional Stay — Judicial Discretion Lower Appellate Court imposed 50% deposit condition for stay. High Court found it: Valid, reasonable and supported by record. (Para 5) However, considering financial hardship, Court exercised equitable jurisdiction and: Modified deposit to 1/3rd of decretal amount + costs and deferred auction accordingly. (Para 6) 4. Scope of Article 227 High Court emphasized that: It will not interfere with discretionary orders unless illegal, arbitrary or perverse. Present order was none of these. (Paras 5–6) RATIO DECIDENDI When no stay operates against a money decree, execution including auction is lawful. A conditional stay requiring deposit of decretal amount is a proper exercise of judicial discretion. Mere allegation of joint family character of property, unsupported by claims of other coparceners, does not bar execution. High Court under Article 227 may modify conditions to balance equities but will not annul such discretionary orders.

Monday, January 12, 2026

Execution — Stay of Auction — Conditional Stay — Joint Family Property Plea — Article 227 Jurisdiction Where decree for recovery of money has not been stayed in appeal, decree-holder is entitled to proceed with execution. Lower Appellate Court is justified in granting stay of auction subject to deposit of part of decretal amount. Mere plea that attached property is joint family/ancestral property, without independent claims by other coparceners, cannot defeat execution. High Court under Article 227 may modify condition of deposit to balance equities but will not interfere with discretionary order unless perverse or illegal. (Paras 3–6) FACTUAL MATRIX Suit: O.S. No.72/2018 for recovery of money — decreed on 31.01.2020. Appeal: A.S. No.7/2021 filed by defendants — no stay of decree granted. Execution: E.P. No.21/2023 — execution court attached property and ordered auction on 09.12.2025. Application: I.A. No.968/2025 seeking stay of execution — allowed by appellate court subject to deposit of 50% decretal amount + costs. Revision: Defendants challenged deposit condition alleging property was joint family property. ⚖️ ISSUES CONSIDERED Whether attachment and auction can proceed when appeal is pending without stay? Whether plea of joint family/ancestral property bars execution? Scope of interference under Article 227 against conditional stay order? ANALYSIS OF LAW & REASONING 1. Right of Decree-Holder to Execute The Court reaffirmed settled principle: In absence of stay of decree, decree-holder is entitled to execute decree. (Para 5) Hence execution proceedings and auction were lawful. 2. Joint Family Property Plea — Rejected Court held: No other coparceners filed claim petitions. No independent objections by alleged co-owners. Therefore plea is unsupported and speculative. Even if joint family property, in absence of rival claimants it can be presumed that property has fallen to JDRs' share or that they are sole legal heirs. (Para 5) Thus, execution cannot be stalled on such unsubstantiated plea. 3. Conditional Stay — Judicial Discretion Lower Appellate Court imposed 50% deposit condition for stay. High Court found it: Valid, reasonable and supported by record. (Para 5) However, considering financial hardship, Court exercised equitable jurisdiction and: Modified deposit to 1/3rd of decretal amount + costs and deferred auction accordingly. (Para 6) 4. Scope of Article 227 High Court emphasized that: It will not interfere with discretionary orders unless illegal, arbitrary or perverse. Present order was none of these. (Paras 5–6) RATIO DECIDENDI When no stay operates against a money decree, execution including auction is lawful. A conditional stay requiring deposit of decretal amount is a proper exercise of judicial discretion. Mere allegation of joint family character of property, unsupported by claims of other coparceners, does not bar execution. High Court under Article 227 may modify conditions to balance equities but will not annul such discretionary orders.

advocatemmmohan

Execution — Stay of Auction — Conditional Stay — Joint Family Property Plea — Article 227 Jurisdiction

Where decree for recovery of money has not been stayed in appeal, decree-holder is entitled to proceed with execution.
Lower Appellate Court is justified in granting stay of auction subject to deposit of part of decretal amount.
Mere plea that attached property is joint family/ancestral property, without independent claims by other coparceners, cannot defeat execution.
High Court under Article 227 may modify condition of deposit to balance equities but will not interfere with discretionary order unless perverse or illegal.
(Paras 3–6)

FACTUAL MATRIX

Suit: O.S. No.72/2018 for recovery of money — decreed on 31.01.2020.
Appeal: A.S. No.7/2021 filed by defendants — no stay of decree granted.
Execution: E.P. No.21/2023 — execution court attached property and ordered auction on 09.12.2025.
Application: I.A. No.968/2025 seeking stay of execution — allowed by appellate court subject to deposit of 50% decretal amount + costs.
Revision: Defendants challenged deposit condition alleging property was joint family property.

⚖️ ISSUES CONSIDERED

Whether attachment and auction can proceed when appeal is pending without stay?
Whether plea of joint family/ancestral property bars execution?
Scope of interference under Article 227 against conditional stay order?

ANALYSIS OF LAW & REASONING

1. Right of Decree-Holder to Execute

The Court reaffirmed settled principle:

In absence of stay of decree, decree-holder is entitled to execute decree.
(Para 5)

Hence execution proceedings and auction were lawful.

2. Joint Family Property Plea — Rejected

Court held:

No other coparceners filed claim petitions.
No independent objections by alleged co-owners.
Therefore plea is unsupported and speculative.

Even if joint family property, in absence of rival claimants it can be presumed that property has fallen to JDRs' share or that they are sole legal heirs.
(Para 5)

Thus, execution cannot be stalled on such unsubstantiated plea.

3. Conditional Stay — Judicial Discretion

Lower Appellate Court imposed 50% deposit condition for stay.

High Court found it:

Valid, reasonable and supported by record.
(Para 5)

However, considering financial hardship, Court exercised equitable jurisdiction and:

Modified deposit to 1/3rd of decretal amount + costs
and deferred auction accordingly.
(Para 6)

4. Scope of Article 227

High Court emphasized that:

It will not interfere with discretionary orders
unless illegal, arbitrary or perverse.
Present order was none of these.
(Paras 5–6)

RATIO DECIDENDI

When no stay operates against a money decree, execution including auction is lawful. A conditional stay requiring deposit of decretal amount is a proper exercise of judicial discretion. Mere allegation of joint family character of property, unsupported by claims of other coparceners, does not bar execution. High Court under Article 227 may modify conditions to balance equities but will not annul such discretionary orders.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN