Transferee pendente lite is not entitled to claim relief under Rules 99 to 101 of Order 21 C.P.C.

(Civil Revision Petition filed against the order dated 9.11.2005 in E.A.No:3285 of 2005 in E.P.No.2248 of 2001 in O.S.No:3461 of 1972 by the learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.)

This revision is filed against the order dated 9.11.2005 made in E.A.No.3285 of 2004 in E.P.No.2248 of 2001 dismissing the said E.A., to record the petitioner/third party as an obstructor. The first respondent is the decree holder and respondents 2 to 4 are judgment debtors.

2. This Civil Revision Petition has a long checkered history. The dispute relates to the property situated at No.5/13, Thambiah Reddy Road, West Mambalam, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). The suit property originally belonged to the father of the 1st respondent, namely, M.Venkatesa Sarma. He executed a Will on 11.5.1973 and a Codicil on 25.1.1974 wherein a deviation clause is incorporated stating that if the 8th respondent, who is his son and quarrelling with his father, does not come for compromise during his life time, he could not get any right or interest in the property at all, which is his self acquired property. The 1st respondent, during the life time of his father, accepted the character of his father's property as his absolute property and compromised with him during his life time. Venkatesa Sarma died on 6.10.1978.

3. During his life time Venkatesa Sarma had filed O.S.No.3461 of 1972 against P.B.Venugopalan, A.N.Rajalakshmi and others for recovery of possession of suit property. It appears that the said A.N.Rajalakshmi was running a nursery school in the suit property. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. A.S.No.198 of 1981 was preferred by V.Rama Devi, daughter of Venkatesa Sarma, who was appointed as the executrix of the Will of the deceased Venkatesa Sarma. In that appeal the appellate Court held that the respondents i.e. A.N.Rajalakshmi and others were trespassers, but dismissed the appeal because the Will was not probated. Against the order of the lower appellate Court Second Appeal No.809 of 1984 was filed by Rama Devi. During the pendency of the appeal, on 3.5.1985 the Will of Venkatesa Sarma was probated in O.P.No.531 of 1980. The executrix of the Will died on 2.9.1986. The 1st respondent applied for Letters of Administration to administer the estate of Venkatesa Sarma in O.P. No.533 of 1986. The petition was ordered on 6.3.1991 by AR.Lakshmanan,J., as he then was. Under the Will of Venkatesa Sarma the suit property has been settled upon 1st respondent. Finally S.A. No.809 of 1984 was heard by K.Sampath,J., and the appeal was allowed on 30.4.1998 holding that the respondents therein namely, A.N.Rajalakshmi and others are trespassers and ordered delivery of possession to the decreeholder. As against the S.L.P. No.14014 of 1998 was preferred by A.N.Rajalakshmi against the estate of Venkatesa Sarma represented by 1st respondent and the same was dismissed on 19.11.1999.

4. A suit for specific performance in C.S.No.719 of 2000 was filed by A.N.Rajalakshmi and others on the basis of the observations made in S.A.No.809 of 1984, against the 1st respondent for specific performance and obtained injunction not to execute the decree in O.S.No:3461 of 1972. On filing of the vacate stay petition, the same was allowed. An appeal preferred by A.N.Rajalakshmi in O.S.A. No.76 of 2002 challenging vacation of interim injunction was dismissed. S.L.P. No.9194 of 2002 filed by A.N.Rajalakshmi against the order in O.S.A. No.76 of 2002 was also dismissed on 27.1.2003.

5. Originally, the suit was laid against P.B.Venugopal and A.N.Rajalakshmi. After the demise of P.B.Venugopal, his wife Radha Bai and sons Sundaram and Mohan were brought on record. But, however the suit was dismissed as against Radha Bai, Sundram and Mohan since the plaintiff had given them up in the proceedings. Thus a decree came to be passed as against A.N.Rajalakshmi on 12.3.1980. Now, after the above said proceedings and after the dismissal of the SLP.No:1401