Back
2023 Supreme(AP) 1443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R.Raghunandan Rao, J.
Rudraraju Subbaraju - Appellant
Versus
Manthena Srinivasa Raju - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 1389 of 2023
Decided On : 07-08-2023
T.N.M.Ranga Rao, Advocate, Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
A purchaser pendente lite cannot resist execution and is not entitled to move the Executing Court under Rule 97 or Rule 99 of Order XXI of C.P.C.
Headnote:
EXECUTION - PROPERTY DISPOSSESSION - ORDER XXI OF C.P.C - 97, 99, 101, 102 - The court discussed the provisions of Order XXI of C.P.C, particularly Rules 97, 99, 101, and 102, and the interpretation of these rules by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Usha Sinha vs. Dina Ram and Others. The court held that a purchaser pendente lite cannot resist execution and is not entitled to move the Executing Court under Rule 97 or Rule 99 of Order XXI of C.P.C. The court emphasized that a pendent lite purchaser is not entitled to move an application for protection against the decree holder from dispossessing the said persons, and the only course open to a pendent lite purchaser would be to get his vendor to resist the application on appropriate grounds.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased land which was subsequently attached in a debt recovery case. The petitioner's application to protect his title and possession over the property was dismissed by the Executing Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, leaving it open to the vendor of the petitioner to protect the possession of the petitioner in the event cogent and relevant grounds of defence are available.
Issues: The main issue was whether a purchaser pendente lite can resist execution or move the Executing Court under Rule 97 or Rule 99 of Order XXI of C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Order XXI of C.P.C, particularly Rules 97, 99, 101, and 102, as discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Usha Sinha vs. Dina Ram and Others, to conclude that a purchaser pendente lite cannot resist execution and is not entitled to move the Executing Court under Rule 97 or Rule 99 of Order XXI of C.P.C.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, leaving it open to the vendor of the petitioner to protect the possession of the petitioner in the event cogent and relevant grounds of defence are available.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner had purchased Ac.0.17 cents of land in Ganapavaram Village and Mandal, West Godavari District from Jampana Sai Bhasakara Raju, who is the 3rd respondent in the revision petition under, a registered deed of sale dtd. 7/6/2015.
2. The petitioner states that he subsequently came to know that O.S.No.121 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem had been filed for recovery of debt under a promissory note and the property purchased by the petitioner was also attached. O.S.No.121 of 2015 was subsequently decreed and E.P.No.38 of 2016 was filed for execution of the said decree by sale of the property purchased by the petitioner.
3. At this stage, the petitioner moved E.A.No.32 of 2023, before the Executing Court (Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem) under Rules 97 to 101 of order XXI of C.P.C for protecting his title and possession over the property. This application was dismissed on 28/4/2023 by the Executing Court on the ground that a pendente lite a purchaser cannot resist execution by relying upon a Judgment of the Chattisgarh High Court reported in Gokul Prasad vs. Chunnilal and another.,2002 CCC 564. The Executing Court also went into the merits of the case apart from the question of limitation raised by the petitioner and held against the petitioner.
4. Sri T.N.M. Ranga Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised various contentions on the merits of the case including the question of whether the decree itself is invalid as the vendor of the petitioner had not signed the pronote which was the basis of the suit.
5. Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Usha Sinha vs. Dina Ram and Others.,(2008) 7 SCC 144 contending that a purchaser Pendente lite cannot resist execution nor is entitled to move the Executing Court under Rule 97 or Rule 99 of Order XXI of C.P.C.
6. Order XXI Rule 97 of C.P.C provides for the decree holder to move the Executing Court for assistance in obtaining possession of immovable property from any person who obstructs the decree holder from obtaining possession. Similarly any third party is entitled to move, the Executing Court, under Rule 99, if the decree holder is seeking to dispossess the third party from possession of the immovable property. In the event of applications being filed under either provision, the Executing Court would consider the issues that would arise therein in terms of Rule 101 of Order XXI and pass orders. The Executing Court would be passing order under Rule 98 where an application is made under Rule 97. Similarly, the Executing Court would be passing order under Rule 100 where an application has made under Rule 99. Rule 102 of Order XX1 of CPC reads as follows:
102. RULES NOT APPLICABLE TO TRANSFEREE PENDENT LITE.
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 judgmentdebtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed or to the dispossession of any such person.
7. This provision has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Usha Sinha's case. The relevant paragraphs of the Judgments are paragraphs 23 to 26 which read as follows:
23. It is thus settled law that a purchaser of suit property during the pendency of litigation has no right to resist or obstruct execution of decree passed by a competent Court. The doctrine of 'lis pendens' prohibits a party from dealing with the property which is the subject matter of suit. 'Lis pendens' itself is treated as constructive notice to a purchaser that he is bound by a decree to be entered in the pending suit. Rule 102, therefore, clarifies that there should not be resistance or obstruction by a transferee pendente lite. It declares that if the resistance is caused or obstruction is offered by a transferee pe
