Subsequent purchasers of property cannot independently challenge a partition decree that has attained finality; their rights are limited to those of the transferor.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

1. The present proceedings have checkered history. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit properties in the year 1956. The suit was concluded within a period of one year and the decree was passed in the year 1957. The defendant nos. 7 and 8 in the suit filed appeal against the said decree before the Appellate Court. All the other parties to the suit accepted the decree of the trial Court. The Appellate Court proceedings concluded by its order on 02.05.1963 in First Appeal Nos. 78/1958 and First Appeal No. 79/1958 and further amended order dated 24.09.1963.

2. However, the execution of the decree has been an endless process. The execution of the decree is obstructed by the subsequent purchasers of the suit property by raising multiple objections before the Collector in proceedings under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code and before the Civil Court and in the High Court and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court on various occasions and the decree holder is yet to secure fruits of the decree. Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 4th December, 2023, directed conclusion of the entire execution proceedings within a period of two months and thus I have taken up for disposal the present Writ Petitions pending in this Court of all the objectors to the execution of the decree.

3. All 10 Writ Petitions pending, relates to the objections filed before the Collector executing the decree under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code and also before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Commissioner. The objectors are resisting the execution of the decree and have challenged the final chart prepared by the Collector for allocation of share of the respective parties to the suit property in terms of decree under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code.

4. In the instant case, all the objectors, undisputedly have purchased the suit properties from the judgment debtors after the finalization of the preliminary decree by the appellate court. All the original defendants, in the instant case, are present before the Collector in execution proceedings and have accepted the partition chart prepared by the Collector. However, the objectors, who have subsequently purchased and further sold the properties after the finalization of the preliminary decree, have raised various objections to the execution of the decree.

5. Thus, the primary question to be considered in the instant cases is whether such independent objections beyond the transferor [judgment debtor] can be raised by the subsequent transferees/purchasers of the suit property, who has purchased the suit property, after the preliminary decree in the suit is confirmed by the appellate court, when the defendants/original judgment debtors are also present in the execution proceeding and have accepted the partition chart prepared by the Collector? The next question to consider is whether the objectors/transferee can seek equitable partition of the suit properties, such that the entire land purchased by the objectors can be adjusted towards the share of the judgment debtor?

In view of the long litigation, the facts in this case are lengthy but are noted below for complete appreciation of the issue at hand. The facts are taken from the earlier judgments of this Court and are not in dispute.

Facts leading to filing the present Writ Petitions are as under:

6. One Maheboob Zarekari was the owner of survey Nos. 46/2, 47/6, 48/6, 53/1B, 133/3, 52/1, 52/2, 131, 50/4 situated at Chahurna (Bk), Taluka and District Ahmednagar and the house property bearing No. 5106 City Survey No. 4097 Ward No. 12, Ahmednagar. Said Maheboob Zarekari died on 19.05.1948 leaving behind him his widow Mamulabee and a daughter Chotibee. The property was then mutated on 13.07.1948 in the name of widow Mamulabee. On 27.07.1949 Mamulabee executed gift deed in respect o