All questions relating to right, title or interest arising between the parties in execution proceedings under Order 21, Rule 97 or Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be determined by the court and not by a separate suit.

This revision is against the orders of the Principal Sub Judge, Tenkasi, made in E.P.No.39 of 1996 in O.S.No.96 of 1966, dated 18. 1998.

2. This revision has arisen in this way:

The petitioner herein is the sixth respondent in the E.P.No.39 of 1996. The main suit is one for partition and possession of the properties. Preliminary decree was passed on 3. 1967 and final decree was passed on 23. 1969. The decree-holder instituted E.P. proceedings in E.P.No.81 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, which was later transferred to the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi and numbered as E.P.No.10 of 1988. The E.P. was filed for delivery of possession of the properties. The present petitioner and the seventh respondents therein objected to the execution and obstructed the delivery of possession. The petitioner in the E.P. proceedings filed E.A.Nos.35 of 1988 and 38 of 1988 as against the petitioner herein, namely, respondent No.5 and respondent No.7 in the E.P. proceedings respectively. The petitioner herein/respondent No.6 and the respondent No.7 in the E.P. proceedings filed an application under O.21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in E.A.Nos.88 of 1989 and 89 of 1989. The Executing Court enquired into the proceedings and dismissed the applications in E.A.No.88 of 1989 and 89 of 1989. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Executing Court, the petitioner herein and the seventh respondent in the E.P. proceedings, preferred C.R.P.Nos.3140 of 1989 and 3141 of 1989 before this Court. Both the civil revision petitions were also dismissed. Subsequent to the dismissal of the civil revision petitions, the petitioner herein respondent No.6 in the E.P. proceedings instituted suit in O.S.No.279 of 1989 and the seventh respondent in the E.P. proceedings instituted suit in O.S.No.280 of 1989. The suit preferred by the petitioner herein, viz., O.S.No.279 of 1989 was dismissed. Further the learned District Munsif granted injunction as prayed for. Proceedings are pending in O.S.No.280 of 1988. At this stage, the Executing Court proceeded with the main E.P.No.10 of 1988. Latter pending civil revision petitions on the file of this Court, E.P.No.10 of 1988 was closed. After disposal of the civil revision petitions and dismissal of suit in O.S.No.279 of 1988, the petitioner in E.P. proceedings instituted E.P.No.39 of 1996 seeking delivery of possession. The petitioner herein as the sixth respondent objected to the delivery on the ground that the learned District Munsif has granted permanent injunction against the petitioner herein in O.S.No.279 of 1988 and therefore, the execution should not be proceeded with. The Executing Court rejected such contention and ordered delivery of possession by 19. 1998. Aggrieved by that order, the sixth respondent has come forward with the instant revision.

3. Heard both the sides. It is quite evident that the petitioner herein is a subsequent purchaser, who had purchased the properties subsequent to the institution of the main suit during 1966. It is evident that while the plaintiff instituted execution proceedings. the petitioner herein raised objections. Her objections were rejected by the Executing Court and her revision petition was also dismissed by this Court. The learned District Munsif had granted injunction, against the decree-holder in O.S.No.279 of 1988, which would be of no avail to the petitioner herein, for all questions relating to right, title or interest arising between the parties are to be gone into in the proceedings instituted under O.21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not by separate proceedings under a suit. This has been reiterated in Smt.Ranu Aich v. Smt.Lakshmi Debnath and others Smt.Ranu Aich v. Smt.Lakshmi Debnath and others Smt.Ranu Aich v. Smt.Lakshmi Debnath and others , 1998 Civ.C.R. 416 (Cal.) (D.B.) their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court have pointed out that title to the property has to be gone into in proceedings under O.21, Rule 97 of