A purchaser pendente lite does not acquire any title to the property to the detriment of the rights of the other party and if such a purchaser makes any obstruction or resistance to the execution of the decree, an enquiry is not contemplated under Order 21 Rules 99 or 100 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. Though the appeal is filed by J.P. Shankar Singh and Jakira Sultana, Jakira Sultana alone filed her objections to the executability of the decree through EA No. 191 of 1983. Those objections were over-ruled. Hence this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants stated that the first appellant also adopted the objections filed by the second appellant. But, the record does not disclose that any memo, had been filed adopting the objections filed by the second appellant. Be that as it may, the objection petition filed by the second appellant relates to the houses bearing No. 301/1 and 302/2 ward in No. 25 of Adoni Municipality. She claimed to be the purchaser from Abidabi. It is contended for the appellants that the final decree passed in favour of the respondents is only in respect of the house bearing No. 303 and it has nothing to do with the house bearing No. 302. Therefore, it is a matter for enquiry. The lower Court did not enquire into the matter under Order 21 Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellants cannot file any suit. Further, it is mandatory for the Court below to hold an enquiry and give a finding thereon. Since the procedure contemplated under Order 21 Rule 100 CPC has not been complied with, the order under appeal is vitiated by error of Jaw.

2. It is resisted by the respondents contending inter alia, that the appellants being purchasers pendente lite have no right to obstruct and that the procedure contemplated under Order 21 Rule 100 CPC has no application, which was made manifest by Order 21 Rule 102 CPC.

3. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly negatived the objections raised by the appellants.

4. The question, therefore, is whether the procedure adopted by the Court below is legal. Sec 52 of the Transfer of Property Act posits that during the pendency, in any court having authority, of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of other parties thereto under any decree or order which may be made thereunder, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose. A reading thereof would manifest that during the pendany of a suit, the parties thereto are prohibited from alienating the property, except under the auitnrity of the Court. Therefore, any alienation thus made would not bind the other party thereto under the decree that may be passed. It is the claim of the respondents that these properties are the subject matter of the partition decree in OS No. 39/58 filed on April 24, 1957, which was subsequently transferred and renumbered as O.S. No. 8 of 1961 on the file of the lower Court. Further the preliminary decree passed therein dated December 23, 1961, has become final and the final decree in I.A. No. 399 of 1964 dated October, 1981, also became final. Therefore, it is not open to any purchaser pendente lite to claim any right in respect thereof.

5. Order 21 Rule 102 CPC reads:

“Nothing in Rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment-debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed or to the dispossession of any such person.”

6. Explanation to the above Rule is unnecessary for the purpose of this case, hence omitted. A combined reading of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and Order 21 Rule 102 CPC postulates that a purchaser pendente lite does not acquire any title to the property to the detriment of the rights of other party and if such a purchaser makes any obstruction or resistance to the execution of the decree so passed, an enquiry is not contemplated under Order 21 Rules 99 or 100 CPC. Therefore, the objections in that regard cannot be entertained.

7. In this case it i