Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 2186

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Menka Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Umashree Devi - Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 6163-6164 OF 2019 (Arising Out Of SLP (C) Nos. 7222-7223/2019)
Decided On : 07-08-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Joseph Aristotle, Advocate, Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a transferee pendente lite has no right to obstruct the execution of a decree and that the High Court has jurisdiction to allow substitution of a party in accordance with the law.

Headnote:
Specific Performance - Title Suit - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order IX Rule 13, Order XXI Rule 97 - Rule 102 of Order 21 - Lis Pendens - Transferee Pendente Lite - Resistance or Obstruction in Execution of Decree - Substitution of Party - Locus Standi - High Court's Jurisdiction - [SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE] - [TITLE SUIT] - [Order IX Rule 13, Order XXI Rule 97, Rule 102 of Order 21] - The court discussed the rights and interests of the parties over the suit property, the implications of the oral agreement and subsequent conveyance, and the application of Rule 102 of Order 21 regarding resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree by a transferee pendente lite. The court also considered the scope of challenge and available submissions at different stages of the proceedings, distinguishing between obstructionists and defendants under different rules of the CPC. The court affirmed the High Court's view and directed the expeditious disposal of the pending case.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a Title Suit seeking specific performance of an oral agreement for the sale of a property. After the original vendor's death, the respondent, a transferee pendente lite, obstructed the execution of the decree passed in the appellant's favor. The respondent sought substitution as a party in place of the original defendant.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent, as a transferee pendente lite, had no right to obstruct the execution of the decree and that the High Court's decision to allow the respondent's substitution was consistent with the law.
Issues: The issues involved the rights and interests of the parties over the suit property, the obstruction of decree execution by the respondent, and the substitution of the respondent as a party in the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 102 of Order 21, the doctrine of lis pendens, and the distinction between obstructionists and defendants under different rules of the CPC. The court also considered the scope of challenge and available submissions at different stages of the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the High Court's view, directed the expeditious disposal of the pending case, and ordered the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the property.

Judgement Key Points

The appellant filed Title Suit No. 137/2007 seeking specific performance of an oral agreement dated 10.10.2006 for sale of property, alleging part payment and partial possession, with balance paid on 20.02.2007 but execution avoided by vendor. [1000662860001]
Summons in the suit were refused by the defendant-vendor, leading to an ex parte decree on 31.03.2008. [1000662860001] (!)
Execution proceedings initiated by decree-holder (appellant), prompting vendor's application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 11.07.2008 to set aside ex parte decree. (!)
Vendor executed sale deed in favor of respondent (transferee pendente lite) on 06.11.2009 during pendency of O.IX R.13 application. [1000662860002]
Respondent obstructed execution, leading to proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC initiated on 22.12.2009; respondent impleaded on 12.01.2010. [1000662860002]
Vendor died on 22.01.2010; respondent sought substitution under Order I Rule 10, Order XXII Rule 10, and Section 141 CPC in place of vendor. (!) (!)
Trial court (Sub-Judge, Siwan) dismissed O.IX R.13 application as abated and rejected stay of execution on 16.06.2010. (!)
Respondent filed writ petitions (CWJC No.11170/2010 and 14075/2010) challenging trial court orders; High Court allowed substitution, finding respondent necessary party as vendor's heirs had no interest post-transfer. (!) (!) (!)
Scope under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC for obstructionist limited to validity of obstruction; distinct from Order IX Rule 13 CPC, where challenge covers sufficient cause for non-appearance or summons defects. (!)
Transferee pendente lite lacks right to resist/obstruct decree execution under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC, which excludes application of Rules 98/100 to such transferees, embodying lis pendens doctrine. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
However, transferee pendente lite has locus standi to pursue Order IX Rule 13 application to set aside ex parte decree, as scope differs from execution obstruction proceedings. (!) (!)
Supreme Court affirmed High Court's substitution order, consistent with law on locus in O.IX R.13 context; directed expeditious disposal of Misc. Case No.43/2008 within one month and status quo on property. (!) (!)

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J. - Leave granted. These appeals challenges the correctness of the judgment and order dated 13.08.2018 passed by High Court of judicature at Patna in CWJC No.11170 of 2010 and CWJC No.14075 of 2010.

2. Title Suit No.137/2007 was filed by the appellant in the Court of 1st Sub-Judge, District Siwan, seeking specific performance in respect of an oral agreement dated 10.10.2006. It was submitted that in pursuance of the agreement, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was made over to the original vendor Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by and the plaintiff was put in partial possession of the suit property was further submitted that on 20.02.2007 the plaintiff had paid the balance sum of Rs.36,000/- in the Registrars Office and all the formalities were completed but at the stage of signing the documents, the vendor pleaded some physical discomfort and as such, the document could not be executed and that thereafter the vendor avoided execution of the documents.3. The summons issued by the Trial Court on 17.06.2007 in said Title Suit No.137/2007 were said to have been refused to be accepted by the defendant-original vendor. Subsequently, an ex parte decree was passed by the Trial Court on 31.03.2008 in said suit.

4. The decree holder-appellant thereafter initiated proceedings to have the decree executed, at which stage the original defendant filed an application being Misc. Case No.43 of 2008 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC") on 11.07.2008 to get the ex parte decree set-aside.

5. While said application was pending consideration, the original defendant-vendor executed a conveyance of the suit property on 06.11.2009,in favour of the present respondent. The attempts made by the decree holder to get the decree executed were obstructed by the respondent which led to proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC getting initiated on 22.12.2009. In those proceedings, the respondent was impleaded on 12.01.2010.

6. The original defendant-vendor died on 22.01.2010.

7. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Order XXII Rule 10 and Section 141 of CPC to have herself substituted in place of original defendant. The Sub-Judge, Siwan by his order dated 16.06.2010 dismissed Misc. Case No.43 of 2008 as having abated and also by a separate order of the same date rejected the prayer of the respondent herein to stay the execution proceedings. This led to the filing of CWJC No.11170 of 2010 and CWJC No.14075 of 2010 by the respondent in the High Court challenging afore-mentioned orders dated 16.06.2010. The petitions were allowed by the High Court and the issues were discussed as under:

"7. Thus, is appears that the petitioner is claiming his right, title and interest over the suit property on the basis of Mahadanama executed on 05.07.2006 followed by registered sale deed dated 06.11.2009. The respondent on the other hand filed title suit on 07.04.2007 on the basis of oral agreement.

8. In view of above facts I find that the petitioner is necessary party to the miscellaneous case as after the death of Durga Prasad it is the petitioner who would suffer loss in the event of dismissal of miscellaneous case. The heirs of Durga Prasad have lost their interest in the suit property. They have neither cause of action nor the right to sue the opposite party of Miscellaneous Case No. 43 of 2008."

8. In these appeals challenging the correctness of the view taken by the High Court we heard Mr. Joseph Aristotle, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.

9. Mr. Joseph Aristotle, learned Counsel submitted that the respondent-purchaser of the suit property during pendency of litigation had no right to obstruct execution of decree passed by a competent court. He relied upon Rule 102 of Order XXI of CPC. In his submission, the respondent had no locus standi in the matter and his application for being impleaded in Miscellan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2019 Supreme(SC) 2186

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAUday Umesh Lalit, J.Menka Gupta - AppellantVersusUmashree Devi - RespondentCIVIL APPEAL Nos. 6163-6164 OF 2019 (Arising Out Of SLP (C) Nos. 7222-7223/2019)Decided On : 07-08-2019

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a transferee pendente lite has no right to obstruct the execution of a decree and that the High Court has jurisdiction to allow substitution of a party in accordance with the law.

Judicial Analysis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Menka Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Umashree Devi - Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 6163-6164 OF 2019 (Arising Out Of SLP (C) Nos. 7222-7223/2019)
Decided On : 07-08-2019