O.21 R.58 — Execution — Claim petition — Unregistered non-possessory agreement — Agreement subsequent to decree — Right to resist execution Held, an unregistered non-possessory agreement of sale executed after the passing of the decree, even coupled with alleged part-payments, does not confer any right, title or interest in the E.P. schedule property so as to enable the claim petitioner to resist execution under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC. (Paras 10–14)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O.21 R.58 — Execution — Claim petition — Unregistered non-possessory agreement — Agreement subsequent to decree — Right to resist execution

Held, an unregistered non-possessory agreement of sale executed after the passing of the decree, even coupled with alleged part-payments, does not confer any right, title or interest in the E.P. schedule property so as to enable the claim petitioner to resist execution under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC.
(Paras 10–14)

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O.21 R.58 — Claim petition — Prima facie right, title or interest — Requirement

Held, in the absence of any prima facie right, title or interest in the subject matter, a claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC is not maintainable, and such an application can be rejected at the threshold without numbering.
(Paras 12–13)

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Execution proceedings — Plea of collusive decree — Who can raise

Held, a third party, claiming under an unregistered non-possessory agreement of sale executed after the decree, has no locus to allege collusion between the decree holder and the judgment debtor in execution proceedings.
(Paras 8, 11–14)

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Appeal under S.96 — Interference with order in execution

Held, where the Execution Court has rightly rejected a claim petition founded on an unregistered agreement of sale subsequent to the decree, no illegality or infirmity is made out warranting interference in appeal under Section 96 CPC.
(Paras 13–16)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The 1st respondent was the plaintiff and decree holder in O.S.No.42 of 2021, instituted on 12.03.2021 for recovery of money based on two promissory notes. The suit was decreed on 23.07.2022.

2. The decree holder initiated execution by filing E.P.No.44 of 2023.

3. The present appellant, as a claim petitioner, filed an unnumbered E.A. under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC, contending that he had entered into an unregistered non-possessory agreement dated 03.10.2022 with the judgment debtor for the E.P. schedule property, and had allegedly paid amounts after the decree.

4. The appellant further alleged that the decree was collusive between the decree holder and the judgment debtor.

5. The Execution Court rejected the claim petition by order dated 14.08.2025, holding that:

   • the agreement relied upon was unregistered,

   • it was subsequent to the decree, and

   • no right could be claimed on such basis to obstruct execution.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the claim petitioner preferred A.S.No.500 of 2025 under Section 96 CPC.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. The Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh framed the central point for determination as to whether the appellant had any prima facie right, title or interest in the E.P. schedule property to resist execution, based on an unregistered non-possessory agreement dated 03.10.2022, executed after the decree.
   (Para 8)

2. The Court noted the chronology of events, emphasizing that:

   • the suit was instituted on 12.03.2021,

   • the decree was passed on 23.07.2022, and

   • the agreement relied upon by the appellant was executed on 03.10.2022, i.e., after the decree, and even the alleged payments were subsequent thereto.
     (Para 10)

3. The Court held that such an unregistered non-possessory agreement does not confer any right, title or interest in the property, even prima facie, so as to resist execution proceedings.
   (Paras 11–12)

4. The Court rejected the contention that the Execution Court ought to have registered the claim petition, holding that no numbering was required when, on the face of it, the claim was untenable.
   (Para 13)

5. The plea of collusive decree was also held to be unsustainable at the instance of a third party whose claim itself was founded on a post-decree, unregistered agreement.
   (Paras 8, 11–14)

6. Finding no illegality or perversity in the order of the Execution Court, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. An unregistered non-possessory agreement of sale executed after the passing of a decree does not confer any right, title or interest in the property so as to enable a third party to resist execution under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC.

2. A claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC, lacking any prima facie right or interest in the subject property, can be rejected at the threshold without being numbered.

3. A third party claiming under a post-decree unregistered agreement has no locus to allege collusion between the decree holder and the judgment debtor in execution proceedings.

4. Orders of the Execution Court rejecting such untenable claims do not warrant interference in appeal under Section 96 CPC.