JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the order, dated 29.01.2019 passed in E.A.No.94 of 2016 in E.P.No.4 of 2016 in O.S.No.2204 of 2012 by the learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”). 2. The appellant herein is the claim petitioner, while respondent No.1 is the Decree Holder/plaintiff and respondent No.2 is the Judgment Debtor/defendant before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. 3. To avoid confusion, the pleadings in O.S.No.2204 of 2012 and the result thereon is discussed in the first instance. 4. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the father of defendant late Ali Ahmed had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the property bearing old Municipal No.634 (new Municipal No.21-1-1098/9/10/11), situated at Rikabgunj, Pathergatti, Hyderabad, admeasuring 375 Sq.yards under an agreement of sale dated 23.02.2001, having received the entire sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- on the said date. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the father of the defendant late Ali Ahmed has also entered into an agreement of sale on 28.07.2000 in respect of suit schedule property and that he filed a suit in O.S.No.4360 of 1999 on the file of X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, but due to the sudden demise of Ali Ahmed, the said suit was dismissed as abated. Further, Ali Ahmed had agreed to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as and when demanded and has also agreed to take possession from the tenants who are occupying the suit schedule property and has authorized the plaintiff to initiate the eviction proceedings against the tenants before the Rent Controller and the same was initiated by the plaintiff. Further the plaintiff has submitted that even on his repeated requests to execute and register the sale deed, the defendant has been avoiding the same on one pretext or the other. It is his further case that he has spent huge amounts for initiating legal proceedings against the tenants, inspite of the same the defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed and the eviction proceedings were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It is his further case that he has spent huge amounts for initiating legal proceedings against the tenants, inspite of the same the defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed and the eviction proceedings were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It is his further case that time is not the essence of contract under the agreement of sale entered into between himself and the father of the defendant, therefore, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice on 08.10.2012 asking the defendant to execute the sale deed but he has been avoiding and the notice sent by the plaintiff was returned as addressee left. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance. 5. The defendant stood ex parte. 6. The plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7, wherein he filed the agreement of sale, valuation certificate, office copy of legal notice, its postal cover and receipt and also certified copy of link documents with English Translation. 7. Since, there was no rebuttal evidence, it was held by the trial Court that the plaintiff could prove his case through the documents submitted by him and hence, the suit was decreed in his favour. 8. In pursuance of the decree, a sale deed was executed through the process of Court in favour of the plaintiff. Following which, E.P.No.04 of 2016 was filed seeking delivery of possession. During the pendency of the E.P, the claim petitioner i.e. Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf rep. by its Managing Trustee Mr.Habib Alladin, has filed E.A.No.94 of 2016. 9. The averments of claim petitioner in brief are that the suit is filed based on falsely created documents, over the property which is a notified and registered Wakf property belonging to Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf. It is further averred that it is a collusive suit between the plaintiff i.e. decree holder and the defendant, and that is the reason the defendant remained ex parte and after obtaining ex parte decree, the E.P. is being pursued to recover possession. It is further averred that it is a collusive suit between the plaintiff i.e. decree holder and the defendant, and that is the reason the defendant remained ex parte and after obtaining ex parte decree, the E.P. is being pursued to recover possession. It is the case of the claim petitioner that along with Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf, there are two other sister trusts namely Mecca Madina Alladin Wakf and Alladin Charities Wakf, registered under separate trust deed and all the three trusts are different entities and that the properties of all the above three trusts are contiguous to each other and that the Mecca Madina Alladin Wakf is spread over an extent of 8515.72 Sq.yards, the extent of Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf is 3151.51 Sq.yards and that Alladin Charities Wakf is admeasuring 1031.77 and that in all a vast extent of 12,699 Sq.yards is in the possession of three trusts and that all the three trusts are notified as registered Wakf properties as per the A.P. Gazette. It is his case that the father of the defendant had no title or right over the property to enter into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff and that the story of his purchasing from the defendant is invented for the purpose of this case. It is his case that the Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf situated at Rikabgunj, Pathergatti, Hyderabad and it is registered and notified in A.P.Gazette No.6-A, dated 09.02.1989 at page 93, Sl.No.2373 and that there is a shopping complex covering the total area of 12,699 acres. It is his further case that M.C.H.Ward No.21, Block No.21-1-1098/1 to 8 at Raikabgunj belongs to Alladin Charities and Zakat Trust and that the tenants are in possession of the shops therein and are paying rents to it. It is his case that the claimant trust is in existence since 1976. It is his further case that M.C.H.Ward No.21, Block No.21-1-1098/1 to 8 at Raikabgunj belongs to Alladin Charities and Zakat Trust and that the tenants are in possession of the shops therein and are paying rents to it. It is his case that the claimant trust is in existence since 1976. He further averred that in the year 2000, four persons namely Hamid Ali, M.A.Kareem, Md.Rawoof and Md.Vilayath Quadri have created false and fabricated documents with an intend to grab the waqf property and had illegally occupied an extent of 536.027 Sq.yards belonging to Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf and also that the said four persons have raised construction fraudulently by obtaining permission of MCH presenting fabricated title documents and further managed and got assigned MCH Nos.21-1-1098/9, 21-1- 1098/10 and 21-1-1098/11, which is part and parcel of the total extent belonging to Alladin Charities and Zakat Waqf. It is further averred that the said land grabbers have also floated a bogus trust in the name of Faizan-e-Al-Hussain. When the said fact was brought to the notice of A.P.Wakf Board, the Chief Executive Officer exercising his powers under Section 54(3) of the Wakf Act had conducted an enquiry and after thorough enquiry, has given a report that they have falsely obtained the municipal numbers on the Wakf property belonging to Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf by fabricating the gift settlement deeds to grab the extent. The CEO vide orders in File No.61/J2/sntc/Hyd/98, dated 15.05.2000, have directed the eviction of the encroachers. Aggrieved by the said orders, the above four persons i.e. alleged encroachers have filed WP No.9434 of 2000 before the Hon’ble High Court and the said writ petition was allowed quashing the orders of CEO Wakf Board. Against the said orders, Writ Appeal No.983 & 1109 of 2001 were filed, which were allowed by the High Court setting aside the orders of the Single Judge. Against the said orders, the matter was carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court vide the SLP (Civil) No.2361-2362 of 2002 which was dismissed on 15.02.2002. Against the said orders, Writ Appeal No.983 & 1109 of 2001 were filed, which were allowed by the High Court setting aside the orders of the Single Judge. Against the said orders, the matter was carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court vide the SLP (Civil) No.2361-2362 of 2002 which was dismissed on 15.02.2002. After loosing the case at Supreme court, the above said four persons have filed a suit in O.S.No.59 of 2002 before the A.P.Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad and after a thorough contest, the said suit for declaration was dismissed with an observation that Hamid Ali and others have no right or title over the property and had upheld the Wakf Board Proceedings dated 15.05.2000. Against the said orders, a revision was filed, which was also dismissed by the High Court. Thus, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.59 of 2002 became final and binding on the parties and thereafter, the suit schedule property continued to be in possession of Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf. 10. The case of the claim petitioner is that the Wakf Tribunal has already settled the issue that M.C.H.No.21-1-1098/9, 21-1- 1098/10 and 21-1-1098/11 are being falsely created and that it is shown to be a Wakf property. The claim of the plaintiff in this suit that he had purchased the suit schedule land bearing No.21-1- 1098/9/10/11 admeasuring 375 Sq.yards from the defendant is not sustainable. His case is that the schedule mentioned in O.S.No.59 of 2002 and in the present suit is one and the same and once it was held as Wakf property, the plaintiff is not entitled to any claim and that just under the colour of ex parte decree, the plaintiff wants to grab the property. He further averred that the defendant or his father have no right or title over the suit schedule property and thus, they cannot convey any better title in favour of the plaintiff. He further averred that earlier RC No.158 of 2002 filed by the plaintiff herein was dismissed as he failed to establish the jural relationship of landlord and the tenant and that the plaintiff is using the very same suit agreement in the present suit for specific performance and by virtue of the said ex parte decree, he is further trying to evict the tenants of Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf and takeover the possession of the same. It is averred that having lost on all fronts, Hamid Ali and others have set up another round of litigation by planting proxies in the shape of plaintiff and defendant in O.S.No.2204 of 2012 and had obtained the present decree by suppressing the real facts and by playing fraud on the Court. He claims that the suit schedule property is notified as Wakf property belonging to the claim petitioner and thus, he seeks for dismissal of E.P.No.04 of 016. 11. The respondent/plaintiff/decree holder in E.A.No.94 in E.P.No.04 of 2016 has filed counter reiterating his averments in the plaint. He further contended that the claim petitioner claiming that the EP schedule property is part and parcel of wakf property, failed to mention the boundaries and schedule in the claim petition and that the claim petition itself is not maintainable, as there is no cause of action and since the EP is not filed for any attachment, the claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 is not maintainable. The claim petitioner has not filed any authorization to show that he is the managing trustee of Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf and that he is authorized to file the present claim petition. He contended that his vendor i.e. late Ali Ahmed was the absolute owner and possessor of property admeasuring 375 Sq.yards having purchased the same under a registered sale deed vide document No.69/1353 Fasli and in turn, he let out the property under a registered lease deed. The said property forms a part of TS LR No.5/1 and whereas the property claimed by the claim petitioner forms part of TS LR No.5. It is contended by the respondent that the claim petitioner failed to file the gazette notification No.6A, dated 09.02.1989 page No.93 Sr.No.2373. It is further contended by the respondent that neither himself nor his vendors are parties to WP No.9434 of 2000 and writ appeal Nos.983 and 1101 of 2001 and SLP No.2361-2362 of 2002 dated 15.02.2002 and further, he is not a party to O.S.No.59 of 2002 and therefore, the said proceedings are not at all binding on him. It is further contended by the respondent that neither himself nor his vendors are parties to WP No.9434 of 2000 and writ appeal Nos.983 and 1101 of 2001 and SLP No.2361-2362 of 2002 dated 15.02.2002 and further, he is not a party to O.S.No.59 of 2002 and therefore, the said proceedings are not at all binding on him. He further averred that respondent No.1 is claiming property based on a title deed vide document No.69 of 1353 fasli, whereas the claim petitioner claims that Mr.M.A.Hameed and others obtained the property vide gift deed in 1998 and that the suit schedule property was purchased by the father of the respondent No.2 under a registered sale deed around 75 years ago and the suit schedule property in O.S.No.59 of 2002 is no way related to the present suit. It is his case that his vendor had an absolute title over the suit schedule property and thus, has entered into an agreement of sale but since he failed to execute the same, he got it executed through the Court, in pursuance of decree obtained by him in O.S.No.2204 of 2012. He further averred that the claim petitioner has filed a petition to implead himself in the eviction proceedings filed by the respondent No.1 before the Rent Controller and the same was dismissed, against which CRP was filed and the same was also dismissed. Subsequently, the claim petitioner has filed EA No.18 of 2009 in EP No.14 of 2008 in RC No.182 of 2002, which is pending. He further submitted that the eviction petition filed by him was dismissed on the ground that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction under Section 10(i) of A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and that the said orders are no way concerned to the present case. He contended that the claim petitioner has no locus standi to obstruct the delivery of possession claimed in EP No.04 of 2016 and that he is acting at the behest of tenants who are illegally occupying the EP schedule property. It is contended that the boundaries and extent of property has not been mentioned in the claim petition to locate the same to be the EP schedule property. Therefore, he submits that EP schedule property is a private property purchased under a sale deed with definite boundaries and extent. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 12. It is contended that the boundaries and extent of property has not been mentioned in the claim petition to locate the same to be the EP schedule property. Therefore, he submits that EP schedule property is a private property purchased under a sale deed with definite boundaries and extent. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 12. Based on the above averments, the trial Court has framed the following points for consideration: “1. Whether the claim petitioner is entitled for E.P.Schedule Property? 2. Whether the claim petition filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 58 is maintainable?” 13. The claim petitioner himself got examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, no evidence was adduced. 14. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is filed by the claim petitioner. 15. Heard the submissions of Sri Y.Srinivas Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Venkaiah Naidu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.Aditya Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 16. The learned appellant counsel has argued that the trial court ought not to have dismissed the claim petition in spite of the evidence produced by him before the trial court. He argued that the trial Court failed to consider the documents produced by him and that the premises bearing Municipal No.21-1-1098/9 to 11 do not exist and that they were created by one Hamid Ali who questioned the order of eviction dated 15.11.2000 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Wakf Board before the Civil Court by filing O.S.No.59 of 2002, which was dismissed on 05.10.2004 holding that the subject matter of the said suit was part of wakf property namely Mecca Madina Alladin Trust, which was a parent trust of the petitioner Wakf. The trial Court failed to see that the respondents in the claim petition i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit have no right, title or interest in the schedule property and that it was a collusive decree obtained by the parties. The trial Court failed to see that the respondents in the claim petition i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit have no right, title or interest in the schedule property and that it was a collusive decree obtained by the parties. He further argued that the premises bearing No.21-1-1098/1 to 8 are notified in the gazette notification dated 20.11.2003 marked under Ex.P6 and that the suit claim with regard to the municipal Nos.21-1-1098/9 to 11 are created fraudulently as held in O.S.No.59 of 2002. He further argued that the plaintiff was not tested by cross examination as the defendant has not contested the suit, out of collusion. He further argued that the agreement of sale itself is a created document and thus, the trial Court ought not to have decreed the suit and when the claim petitioner has put forth the actual facts before the trial Court that the suit schedule property belongs to Zakath Wakf, it ought to have allowed his claim petition by dismissing the EP No.4 of 2016. He therefore, prayed to set aside the orders passed by the trial Court in EA No.94 of 2016. 17. The learned respondent counsel, on the other hand, has argued that the property is a private property having purchased by the vendor vide a registered document and that the plaintiff has entered into an agreement of sale with his vendor and when he died without executing the sale deed, he filed a suit, then through the process of Court, a sale deed has been executed in his favour. He has filed all the documents in support of his case, which were examined by the trial Court while passing the decree. In pursuance to the decree, he got the sale deed executed through the process of Court and subsequently, he filed this EP No.4 of 2016 for delivery of possession. Therefore, the claim petitioner cannot allege any fraud against him. His contention is that the claim petitioner himself has no right or authority to file the present claim petition, as he has not filed any authorization given by the Wakf. He further argued that the claim petitioner has not mentioned the boundaries of the suit schedule property and has failed to file the gazette notification. His contention is that the claim petitioner himself has no right or authority to file the present claim petition, as he has not filed any authorization given by the Wakf. He further argued that the claim petitioner has not mentioned the boundaries of the suit schedule property and has failed to file the gazette notification. He further argued that he is not a party to O.S.No.59 of 2002, WP No.9434 of 2000 and writ appeal Nos.983 and 1101 of 2001 and SLP No.2361-2362 of 2002. He further argued that the suit schedule property is different from that under O.S.No.59 of 2002 and that without any right or interest the claim petitioner was not supposed to interfere in the execution proceedings. In the absence of any document in his favour, the claim petitioner cannot succeed in putting forth his claim and that therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the claim petition. The claim petitioner who was examined as PW1 has admitted all these facts in his cross examination, that he is not authorized and further that Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf itself is being managed by the wakf Board and that he has not intimated the wakf Board that he filed the claim petition in this suit. He therefore, submitted that the claim petitioner himself has no locus to file this claim petition and further that the petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC is not at all maintainable, since the present E.P. is filed for recovery of possession and not for attachment. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 18. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the EP schedule property belongs to the claim petitioner? If so, whether EP No.04 of 2016 is liable to be dismissed? 2) Whether the claim petition filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC is maintainable? 3) Whether the order and decree of trial court is sustainable in law and under the facts? 4) To what relief? 19. If so, whether EP No.04 of 2016 is liable to be dismissed? 2) Whether the claim petition filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC is maintainable? 3) Whether the order and decree of trial court is sustainable in law and under the facts? 4) To what relief? 19. POINT NO.1: a) The case of the claim petitioner is that the petition schedule property belongs to Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf and that the respondent No.2 has no title or interest to convey the same in favour of respondent No.1 and that they played fraud on the Court and obtained a collusive decree and therefore, EP No.04 of 2016 filed for delivery of possession needs to be dismissed. b) In support of his claim, he got himself examined as PW1 and relied upon Exs.P1 to P6. Ex.P2 is the copy of the orders in Writ Petition No.9434 of 2000, which was filed against the proceedings of Wakf Board in File No.61/J2/Sntc/Hyd/98, dated 15.05.2000, setting aside the orders of Wakf Board. Then, Ex.P1 is the copy of judgment in W.A.No.983 of 2001 and 1109 of 2001, dated 18.10.2001 which shows that the writ appeal filed against the orders passed in W.P. was allowed confirming the orders of wakf board and further directed the parties to approach Wakf Tribunal in case if they are aggrieved. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the orders in RC No.158 of 2002 showing that they were filed by the plaintiff in the present suit which was dismissed. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of orders in RC No.171 of 2002 which is also filed by the decree holder herein and the same was dismissed. Ex.P5 is the judgment in O.S.No.59 of 2002 wherein the suit schedule properties in the said suit were held to be the wakf property. Ex.P6 is the A.P.Gazette No.47, dated 20.11.2003. c) PW1 during the course of his cross examination has admitted that he has not filed any document to show that he is the managing trustee of the claim petitioner and that he has not filed any document to show that he is authorized by the trust to file the present claim. He has also not filed the trust deed. c) PW1 during the course of his cross examination has admitted that he has not filed any document to show that he is the managing trustee of the claim petitioner and that he has not filed any document to show that he is authorized by the trust to file the present claim. He has also not filed the trust deed. d) The contention of the respondent’s counsel in this regard is that the trust deed itself is not filed to show that he is a managing trustee and further, he has not filed any authorization to show that he is authorized to file the present claim, so he has no locus to file the claim petition. e) The contention of the claim petitioner is that he has filed Ex.P6 the gazette notification, wherein the properties of wakf are notified and thus that itself authenticates him to file the present claim petition. f) A perusal of Ex.P6, the gazette reveals that the Municipal Nos.21-1-1098/1 to 8, are included as wakf properties and the name of Wakif, father’s name residence and occupation is disclosed as Noor Mohd. Alladin, Iqbal Alladin and Habeeb Alladin. Thus, the said properties are mentioned as wakf properties in the gazette, therefore, one of the trustees would be authorized to do any act on behalf of the Trust. However, it is borne out by record that the claim petitioner has not filed any trust deed or any authorization issued by the trust. It is pertinent to note that the suit schedule property bears municipal Nos.21-1-1098/9 to 11 but the claim petitioner contends that the property belongs to their Wakf. It is elicited from PW1/the claim petitioner that Alladin Charities and Zakat Trust is taken over by the wakf board and it is under the direct control of Wakf Board. Further, it is elicited from him that he has not intimated the Wakf Board about filing the present petition. Though PW1 stated that their trustees unanimously passed a resolution authorizing him to file the claim petition he has not filed the said resolution and further has admitted that there is no specific resolution to file the claim petition. Once it is under the direct control of Wakf Board, the managing trustees would not have any locus to file the claim petition. Once it is under the direct control of Wakf Board, the managing trustees would not have any locus to file the claim petition. g) Though the claim petitioner contends that he is claiming the property admeasuring 3151 Sq.yards basing upon a Farman and an authenticated copy of plan to an extent of 3151 Sq.yards annexed to Farman, the said Farman and the plan are also not filed in the Court. PW1 has admitted that he has not specifically mentioned about the boundaries of 375 Sq.yards claimed by him in the claim petition but he is still disputing the EP schedule boundaries. It is elicited from PW1 that in O.S.No.59 of 2002 Hamid Ali and others did not refer to any old municipal number of premises No.21-1-1098/9 to 11 and that the decree holder in the present suit is referring to the old municipal numbers as 634 of EP schedule property. He stated that the said municipal number is fabricated but he failed to file any document in support of the same. On the other hand, he has admitted that as on date the municipal Nos.21-1-1098/9 to 11 still exists in the municipal record. Admittedly as per Ex.P6 there is no municipal Nos.21-1- 1098/9 to 11 in the list of wakf properties. Though PW1 contends that he has lodged a complaint in respect of municipal Nos. 21-1- 1098/9 to 11 against the said trust before the MCH, the said copy is also not filed. The record discloses that the decree holder or his vendors are not parties to the proceedings in Exs.P1, P2 and P5. It is further elicited from PW1 that the municipal Nos.21-1-1098/9 to 11 is not allocated to Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf and the same was claimed by Hamid Ali and others in O.S.No.59 of 2002. This admission nullifies his case. h) It is the contention of the claim petitioner that the eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent herein in R.C.Nos.158 of 2002 and 171 of 2002 were dismissed by the trial Court as the respondents are not the owners of the property. But the claim petitioner as PW1 has admitted that the eviction proceedings were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Exs.P3 and P4 further reveal that the said fact. But the claim petitioner as PW1 has admitted that the eviction proceedings were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Exs.P3 and P4 further reveal that the said fact. i) PW1 has not filed any proof to show that EP schedule property is part of the trust property except for filing Ex.P6 and the municipal Nos.21-1-1098/9 to 11 are not covered in Ex.P6. In Ex.P6 there are seven mulgies without municipal numbers. PW1 stated that seven mulgies and new construction shopping complex were included under Wakf properties but he has not filed any Wakf survey commission report in support of his statement. It is borne out by record that the decree holder and his vendor were claiming ownership under document No.69 of 1353 fasli, even during the eviction proceedings and other proceedings initiated by the decree holder and it is the same property over which delivery of possession is claimed in the present execution petition. The said sale deed document No.69 of 1353 fasli is not challenged by the claim petitioner. This particular document conveys title in favour of the vendor of the decree holder herein and further the agreement of sale dated 23.01.2001 between the decree holder and his vendor is also not challenged. The claim petitioner could not put forth any evidence to hold that the property belongs to the claim petitioner. j) Both the learned counsel relied upon a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dr. M. Parvathi v. Penumatcha Satyanarayana Raju , 2013 (4) ALD 608 (DB) , wherein it was held that “in a given case, if the plaintiff is able to establish a semblance of title, though not so perfect a one, he can succeed if what is proved by him is relatively superior to that of the defendant. However, the proof of the title, even if not to the level of perfection, must be the one which is acceptable in law. If this test is applied to the facts of appellants case, it emerges that the appellants failed to prove their title, since no witness, except one of them was examined and several discrepancies pointed out and admitted by the sole witness, remain unexplained”. If this test is applied to the facts of appellants case, it emerges that the appellants failed to prove their title, since no witness, except one of them was examined and several discrepancies pointed out and admitted by the sole witness, remain unexplained”. k) It is the contention of the appellant counsel that the plaintiff/decree holder in this suit has no semblance of title to hold that it is relatively superior to that of defendant and thus, he is not entitled to recovery of possession and thus, his execution petition has to be dismissed. While the contention of the respondent counsel is that the claim petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property but has not filed any documents to prove his title. l) Applying the above decision to the facts of the present case, the respondent/decree holder has a sale deed in his favour executed through process of Court in pursuance to the decree obtained by him, while the claim petitioner got examined himself as a witness, he could not produce any document to prove that the suit schedule property belongs to Alladin Charities and Zakat Wakf. Thus, in the absence of any proof of title in his favour, the claim petitioner cannot succeed in claiming the suit schedule property. Hence, he cannot seek dismissal of EP No.4 of 2016. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 20. POINT NO.2: a) The contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1/decree holder is that the claim petition is not maintainable under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC as the present EP is filed seeking delivery of possession and that the question involved would fall under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew , (2023) 20 SCC 76 wherein it was held that “the provisions contained in Rules 97 to 106 Order 21 CPC under the sub-heading “resistance to delivery of possession to decree-holder or purchaser” have been held by this Court to be a complete code in itself in Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, (1997) 3 SCC 694 as well as in a decision of recent origin in Asgar v. Mohan Varma, (2020) 16 SCC 230 . In the latter decision, it has been noted that Rules 97 to 103 Order 21 provide the sole remedy to both the parties to a suit as well as to a stranger to the decree put to execution”. He further relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority v. N. Nanjappa, (2022) 18 SCC 156 wherein it was held that all questions including question relating to the right, title, interest in suit property arising between parties to a proceeding on an application under O 21 R 97 or R 99 CPC, and relevant to adjudication of said application, must be determined by Court dealing with application i.e. executing court and not by a separate suit. b) It is pertinent to refer to Order 21 Rule 58 and 97 of CPC in this regard: “ 58. Adjudication of claims to or objections to attachment of property.— (1) Where any claim is preferred to, or any objection is made to the attachment of, any property attached in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the claim or objection in accordance with the provisions herein contained : Provided that no such, claim or objection shall be entertained— (a) where, before the claim is preferred or objection is made, the property attached has already been sold; (b) where the Court considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. (2) All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property attached) arising between the parties to a proceeding or their representatives under this rule and relevant to the adjudication of the claim or objection, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the claim or objection and not by a separate suit. (3) Upon the determination of the questions referred to in sub-rule (2), the Court shall, in accordance with such determination— (a) allow the claim or objection and release the property from attachment either wholly or to such extent as it thinks fit; or (b) disallow the claim or objection; or (c) continue the attachment subject to any mortgage, charge or other interest in favour of any person; or (d) pass such order as in the circumstances of the case it deems fit. (4) Where any claim or objection has been adjudicated upon under this rule, order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. (5) Where a claim or an objection is preferred and the Court, under the proviso to sub-rule (1), refuses to entertain it, the party against whom such order is made may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute; but, subject to the result of such-suit, if any, an order so refusing to entertain the claim or objection shall be conclusive. 97. Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property.— (1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. (2) Where any application is made under sub-rule (1), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.” c) Thus, it is clear from the above provisions that if any claim is made to attachment of any property, attached in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to attachment, then, the Court can adjudicate the same under Order 21 Rule 58. While, when there is a resistance to delivery of possession to a decree holder or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree, then the application shall lie under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. d) In the present case, the Execution Petition is filed seeking delivery of possession as the sale deed is already executed and the claim petitioner is resisting the delivery of possession. Thus, the application ought to have been made under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. e) The respondent’s counsel further relied upon a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Rahatunnisa v. Md. Saber Ali Khan , 2008 SCC OnLine AP 1026 wherein it was held that “the petitioner wrongly invoked both Rule 58 (pre-possession stage) and Rule 97 (removal of resistance in the course of execution). e) The respondent’s counsel further relied upon a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Rahatunnisa v. Md. Saber Ali Khan , 2008 SCC OnLine AP 1026 wherein it was held that “the petitioner wrongly invoked both Rule 58 (pre-possession stage) and Rule 97 (removal of resistance in the course of execution). Since she admitted not being in possession, her petition under Rule 58 was inapplicable.” f) In the light of the above cited decision and also in view of the statutory position under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC, the present claim petition is not maintainable for the relief claimed by the petitioner. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 21. POINT NO.3: a) It is contended by the claim petitioner that wrong quoting of a legal provision does not disentitle him from claiming any relief. b) It is held in this regard that the case has been discussed on its merits under point No.1 and reasoned finding is given under point No.1 that the claim petitioner is not entitled to hold that the petition schedule properties belong to the claim petitioner and further he cannot seek dismissal of EP No.04 of 2016. Therefore, on merits of the case also, the claim petition deserves to be dismissed. c) In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point Nos.1 and 2, it is held that the order passed by the trial Court are found to be well reasoned and hence, they are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. 22. POINT NO.4: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order, dated 29.01.2019 passed in E.A.No.94 of 2016 in E.P.No.4 of 2016 in O.S.No.2204 of 2012 by the learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.