Full effect to the meaning of every word to be given by court.

S.Jagadeesan, J.

The appeal is against the order dated 16.8.2002 in E.P.78 of 1997 in M.H.C.S.73 of 1981 on the file of Sub Court, Poonamallee. The first respondent filed the suit C.S.No.73 of 1981 on the file of this court for partition of the suit property and for allotment of half of his share. A preliminary decree was passed on 7.11.1985.

2.Subsequent to the preliminary decree, the first respondent filed an application 5412 of 1988 in C.S.73 of 1981 for passing final decree. An Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to suggest the mode of division. Subsequently this court passed the final decree on 25.4.1989. On the basis of the final decree, the first respondent also filed E.P.78 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, praying for delivery of vacant possession of the disputed item herein.

3.The appellants got themselves impleaded in the said execution petition as sixth respondent and disputed the claim of the first respondent in the E.P. Overruling the objections raised by the appellant herein, the executing court ordered delivery. As against which the appeal has been filed.

4.The learned senior counsel contended that Order 21, Rule 98 and Order 21, Rule 101 C.P.C have no application to the transfers from a transferee pendente lite. The restrictions imposed therein will be applicable only to the first transferee pendente lite from the party to the proceeding and it has no application to the subsequent transfers in a chain of events.

5.After hearing the arguments on this point, we reserved orders. At that time the learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that he wants to enlighten the court with some authorities on this issue and being a debatable question the appeal can be admitted. As we are not inclined to admit the appeal, since so far as this issue is concerned already we reserved order in another O.S.A, we directed the learned senior counsel for the appellant to submit his written argument. In the written arguments, the learned senior counsel has stated that on 4.9.1984 the respondents 2 to 6 herein who are the defendants in the suit sold Item No.5 of the plaint schedule in favour of M/s.Eastland Mamufacturing Co. The said item stood in the name of one Loganathan, the brother of the first respondent. The respondents 2 to 6 are the legal representatives of the said Loganathan. The final decree was passed on 26.4.1989. The respondents 2 to 6 remained exparte. In the final decree the first respondent and the respondents 2 to 6 were allotted half share each in Item No.5 of the plaint schedule property. Under five sale deeds dated 20.7.1989, 21.7.1989, 22.7.1989 and 16.5.1990 (two sale deeds), the appellant purchased the property from the transferee Eastland Manufacturing Co who purchased the same during the pendency of the suit. The pendency of the suit is not mentioned in the sale deeds. The appellants were not party to the proceeding. The appellant has no knowledge about the pendency of the proceeding. The appellant invested huge amount and constructed 10,000 sq.ft. building for business. The first respondent and the respondents 2 to 6 being family members they colluded together and defrauded the appellant. The remedy for the first respondent is to proceed against the respondents 2 to 6, since the second respondent is the Receiver. Rule 97 to 104 C.P.C refers only the transferee from the judgment debtor and not to any purchaser or any one claiming title or interest under the purchaser of the judgment debtor. He also relied upon the judgment reported in JAYARAM MUDALIAR v. AYYASWAMI (AIR 1973 SC 569) and KADERNATH v. SHEONARAIN (AIR 1970 SC 1717).

6.We carefully considered the above contentions of the learned senior counsel as well as the written argument. There is a fallacy in the argument of the learned senior counsel. Though Order 21, Rule 98 and 102 refer to the 'transferee from the judgment debtor', in our considered view, the term 'transferee from the judgment debtor' would also include th