Yes, the ratio is applicable to a transferee of the plaintiff (decree-holder) seeking to enforce the decree, subject to the statutory framework discussed. Key Principles from the Judgment Applicable to Transferee of Plaintiff: Person Claiming Under the Decree-Holder: A transferee pendente lite or post-decree from the plaintiff/decree-holder qualifies as a "person claiming under" the original party under Section 146 CPC. Proceedings (including execution) may be taken by or against such a person. (!) (!) Execution Rights Under Order XXI Rule 16 CPC: The decree is available for execution by the transferee of the plaintiff-decree-holder in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the application were made by the original decree-holder. This applies regardless of whether the transfer occurred before or after the decree, with or without notice. (!) (!) Representative Capacity and Liberal Construction: Section 146 CPC is a beneficent provision to be construed liberally to advance justice, allowing the transferee to step into the shoes of the decree-holder for enforcement purposes, akin to how a lis pendens transferee from the defendant is bound by the decree. (!) (!) Subservience to Litigation Outcome: Transfers (including to/from plaintiff) pendente lite are subservient to the decree under Section 52 TPA, enabling the decree-holder's transferee to enforce it without the transfer being ipso jure invalid. (!) (!) (!) Distinctions from Defendant's Transferee: While the core ratio addresses locus standi for a defendant's lis pendens transferee to seek leave to appeal (requiring proof of prejudice, judicial discretion, and no automatic right), (!) (!) (!) (!) the plaintiff's transferee faces no such barrier for enforcement, as Order XXI Rule 16 provides a direct mechanism. (!) No need for impleadment/leave in trial or appeal stages for enforcement; execution application suffices. (!) Practical Application: The transferee must demonstrate the assignment/transfer and may apply directly for execution. (!) Courts exercise discretion judiciously, but the principles favor enforcement to protect the transferee's interest derived from the decree-holder. (!) (!) This aligns with the judgment's emphasis on equitable treatment for those "claiming under" parties, ensuring the decree's efficacy. (!) (!) (!) (!)

H. Anjanappa vs A. Prabhakar - 2025 Supreme(SC) 244

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 244

J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
H. Anjanappa – Appellant
Versus
A. Prabhakar – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. For M/s.Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Agam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dharam Singh, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar K B, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Akash Kukreja, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Mr. Prashanth Kumar D, Adv. Mr. Abheet Mangleek, Adv. Mr. Tushar Nair, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Anand, Adv. Mr. Punishk Handa, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Yes, the ratio is applicable to a transferee of the plaintiff (decree-holder) seeking to enforce the decree, subject to the statutory framework discussed.

Key Principles from the Judgment Applicable to Transferee of Plaintiff:

Person Claiming Under the Decree-Holder: A transferee pendente lite or post-decree from the plaintiff/decree-holder qualifies as a "person claiming under" the original party under Section 146 CPC. Proceedings (including execution) may be taken by or against such a person. (!) (!)
Execution Rights Under Order XXI Rule 16 CPC: The decree is available for execution by the transferee of the plaintiff-decree-holder in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the application were made by the original decree-holder. This applies regardless of whether the transfer occurred before or after the decree, with or without notice. (!) (!)
Representative Capacity and Liberal Construction: Section 146 CPC is a beneficent provision to be construed liberally to advance justice, allowing the transferee to step into the shoes of the decree-holder for enforcement purposes, akin to how a lis pendens transferee from the defendant is bound by the decree. (!) (!)
Subservience to Litigation Outcome: Transfers (including to/from plaintiff) pendente lite are subservient to the decree under Section 52 TPA, enabling the decree-holder's transferee to enforce it without the transfer being ipso jure invalid. (!) (!) (!)

Distinctions from Defendant's Transferee:

While the core ratio addresses locus standi for a defendant's lis pendens transferee to seek leave to appeal (requiring proof of prejudice, judicial discretion, and no automatic right), (!) (!) (!) (!) the plaintiff's transferee faces no such barrier for enforcement, as Order XXI Rule 16 provides a direct mechanism. (!)
No need for impleadment/leave in trial or appeal stages for enforcement; execution application suffices. (!)

Practical Application:

The transferee must demonstrate the assignment/transfer and may apply directly for execution. (!)
Courts exercise discretion judiciously, but the principles favor enforcement to protect the transferee's interest derived from the decree-holder. (!) (!)

This aligns with the judgment's emphasis on equitable treatment for those "claiming under" parties, ensuring the decree's efficacy. (!) (!) (!) (!)

JUDGMENT :

(J.B. Pardiwala, J.)

1. Leave granted.

2. Since the issues raised in the above captioned appeals are the same, the parties are also same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. The appeals arise from the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 16.11.2022 in I.A. Nos. 1 & 3 of 2018 respectively in Regular First Appeal No. 1303 of 2018 by which the High Court allowed the said I.A. Nos. 1 & 3 of 2018 respectively filed by the respondents herein and thereby condoned the delay of 586 days in filing the said appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli in Original Suit No. 458 of 2006 instituted for specific performance of contract. By the order passed in I.A. Nos 1 & 3 of 2018 respectively, the High Court granted leave to appeal to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (subsequent purchasers) against the original judgment and decree of specific performance as they were not parties in the suit proceedings.

4. The facts giving rise to these app