Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
R. Raghunandan Rao and M. Venkata Ramana, JJ.
Kurra Murali Krishna Yadav
and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Sri Lakshmi Rama Cooperative
Building Society Limited
and Ors. – Respondents
C.R.P.No.1790, 1791, 2771 & 2900 of 2019 & C.R.P.Nos.1282 and 1293 of 2021
Decided on 3.3.2022

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri V.S.R. Anjayeyulu, Sr. Counsel representing Sri V. Satyanarayana Prasad and Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad
For the Respondent No.1:T.V.P. Sai Vihari, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
There is no provision in Civil Procedure Code, governing procedure for impleading subsequent purchasers at the stage of execution proceedings – In such an event, inherent powers of court under Section 151 of C.P.C., can always be invoked.

Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 21 Rules 97 and 101 read with Order I Rule 10 and Section 151 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – Execution of decree – Impleadment of pendente lite purchasers in execution proceedings – There is no provision in Civil Procedure Code, governing procedure for impleading subsequent purchasers at the stage of execution proceedings – In such an event, inherent powers of court under Section 151 of C.P.C., can always be invoked – Presence of purchasers in sale deeds is essential to completion of process and in absence of any specific provision for impleading purchasers, decree holder can always rely upon provisions of Section 151 and seek invocation of inherent power of court to do justice. (Paras 28, 29 and 30)
Result: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.—Since all these civil revision petitions are essentially arising between the same parties, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Sri Lakshmi Rama Cooperative Building Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘decree holder’) had filed O.S.No.66 of 1984 and O.S.No.132 of 1984 against Sri Shaik Ismail (deceased) and his son Sri Abdul Mazid, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Judgment Debtors 1 and 2) for specific performance of agreements of sale. Both these suits were disposed of on 19.08.1995, with certain directions, essentially decreeing the suit for specific performance.

3. The Judgment Debtors 1 and 2 filed A.S.No.2043 of 1995 against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.132 of 1984 and A.S.No.478 of 1996 against the judgment in O.S.No.66 of 1984. Both these appeals, filed before the erstwhile High Court of A.P., were dismissed on 03.06.2013. Appeals to the Hon’ble Supreme Court against these orders have also been dismissed.

4. As one of the directions given by the trial Court was for obtaining necessary permissions from the Urban Land Ceiling authorities for completion of the sale proceedings of the suit schedule properties, the decree holder had filed E.P.No.21 of 2002 in O.S.No.132 of 1984 and E.P.No.22 of 2002 in O.S.No.66 of 1984 for appointment of a receiver to obtain necessary permissions for sale of the property. The receiver gave a report on 06.06.2013 stating that the judgment debtors had been declared as non-surplus holders under the Urban land Ceiling Act. Thereafter, the decree holder filed E.P.No.78 of 2013 in O.S.No.66 of 1984 and E.P.No.77 of 2013 in O.S.No.132 of 1984 for execution of the said decrees.

5. The decree holder filed E.A.No.208 of 2017 in E.P.No.78 of 2013 and E.A.No.209 of 2017 in E.P.No.77 of 2013 to implead 25 persons in E.A.No.208 of 2017 and 21 persons in E.A.No.209 of 2017 as parties in the execution proceedings.

6. The case of the decree holder in both these applications was that during the pendency of the appeals before the Hon’ble High Court, the judgment debtor 1 had already been declared as non-surplus holder and suppressing that fact, the judgment debtors had plotted the lands involved in both the suits and appeals and sold it to various persons. The decree holder contended that all the sales executed by the judgment debtors were subject to the principle of lis pendens, contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and that, the persons sought to be impleaded in both the execution petitions, were the persons who were presently holding title to the land by virtue of the sales effected by the judgment debtors and in some cases, persons who had purchased lands from the judgment debtors (hereinafter referred to, collectively, as ‘purchasers’).

7. These applications were contested by the purchasers, on various grounds including the question of whether the decree holder could implead these purchasers, when the decree holder had kept quiet while the land was being sold and the purchasers had constructed houses and were residing in the land. The purchasers contend that they are bona fide purchasers without notice of the litigation and as such the principles of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act would not apply. However, the Executing Court after considering the arguments of both sides allowed the applications impleading the purchasers as parties to the execution petitions.

8. Aggrieved by the said orders, the purchasers have filed the following civil revision petitions.

9. This Court, by way of interlocutory orders, had stayed all further proceedings in the execution petitions, by an order dated 13.12.2019. Thereafter, the decree holder had approached the trial Court and sought pronouncement of orders in the execution petition relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2018 SC 2039. The contention of the decree holder was that, the stay granted would automatically stand vacated after a lapse of six months if the st