Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 42047
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
K.K. Ramakrishnan, J
S.V. Anand – Appellant
Versus
Maadhusri Akkabai Amman Chathiram – Respondent
C.R.P(MD).Nos.1874 and 2133 of 2019|C.M.P(MD).Nos.9583 and 11192 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Abdul Mubeen
For the Respondents: Niranjan. S. Kumar
A pendente lite purchaser, specifically an alienee's alienee, is bound by the decree and is barred under Order XXI Rule 102 of CPC from resisting execution or challenging the decree-holder's title through applications under Order XXI Rules 97 or 101.
Headnote:(A) Execution Proceedings - Pendente lite Purchaser - A person who purchases property during the pendency of a suit or execution proceedings (alienee's alienee) is bound by the decree and cannot dispute the title of the decree-holder or resist execution via objections under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. (Para 6.1, 6.4)
(B) Order XXI Rule 97, CPC - Maintainability - The right to apply under Rule 97 to complain of resistance is reserved for the holder of a decree for possession or the purchaser of such property sold in execution; it cannot be invoked by a third-party purchaser who did not purchase from the decree-holder. (Para 6.2)
(C) Order XXI Rule 101 & 102, CPC - Bar on Resistance - Jurisdiction under Rule 101 is ancillary to applications under Rule 97 or 99. Under Rule 102, a pendente lite purchaser is specifically barred from raising resistance to a decree. (Para 6.3, 6.4)
Issues: Whether a pendente lite purchaser (alienee's alienee) has the right to file an objection petition under Order XXI Rule 97 and Rule 101 of CPC to resist the execution of a decree.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. final dismissal of the revision petitions based on lack of merit. (Para 7 , 8) |
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order of rejection dated 01.07.2019 passed in CFR No.1317 of 2019 in EP No.11 of 2015 in OS No. 228 of 1977 by learned District Munsif, Pattukottai and thereby allow the above Civil Revision Petition and consequently direct the learned District Munsif Court to take the application on file and number the same and adjudicate the same under Order XXI Rule 101 of CPC.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen
For Respondents : Mr.Niranjan. S.Kumar, for R1
: No appearance for R2 to R5
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the return of the execution application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 by its order dated 13.11.2019 in CFR No.3428 of 2019 in E.P.No.47 of 2010 in O.S.No.309 of 1977 and thereby allow the above Civil Revision Petition and consequently direct the Learned District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai to take the application on file and number the same and adjudicate the same Under Order XXI Rule 101 of CPC.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen
For Respondents : Mr.Niranjan. S.Kumar, for R1
COMMON ORDER
The revision petitioners are alienee’s alienee. Their vendor purchased the property of respondent trust during the pendency of the ejectment suit initiated by the trust in O.S.No.309 of 1977. The respondent’s trust has filed the suit for ejectment and recovery of possession from the tenant of the trust. The said tenant during the pendency of the suit sold the properties to the 3rd parties. From the 3rd parties the vendor of the petitioner purchased the properties. On the basis of the decree, the respondent trust have filed the execution proceedings. In the said execution proceedings, the bailiff was appointed to take the possession. At the time, the petitioner came to know about the filing of the suit and exparte decree obtained against their vendor’s vendor. Therefore, they have filed the objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C., and the same was dismissed without numbering in C.F.R.No. 1317 of 2019. The said dismissal orders have been challenged before this court in the present C.R.Ps.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent trust has no title to the suit schedule property. The respondent trust have filed the suit in O.S.No. 228 of 1977 and obtained the exparte decree only in the year 2003 and they have also filed the execution petition belatedly in the year 2014 i.e., after 11 years from the date of decree. In the interregnum period, the petitioners constructed the house and settled in the land. The learned counsel further elaborated his argument by placing reliance of the various precedents that “any person” under order 21 rule 97 of C.P.C. includes the purchaser and hence their application is legally maintainable. Therefore their application ought to have been entertained by the execution court and decided their case of title. The learned counsel placed the following precedents:-
2.1. (a) in the case of Akkaloi Ammani Chatram Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in AIR 1980 Madras 149
b) In the case of Silverline Forum Pvt Ltd Vs. Rajiv Trust and another reported in (1998) 3 SCC 723
c) In the case of Kishan Lal Barwa Vs. sharda Saharan and another reported in 2015 SCC Online All 4980
d) In the case of Shamsher Singh and another Vs. Lieutenant Colonel Nahar Singh (Dead) through Lrs and others reported in (2019) 17 SCC 279
e) In the case of Asgar and others Vs. Mohan Varma and others reported in (2020) 16 SCC 230
f) In the case of Jini Dhabrajgir and another vs. Shibu Mathew and another reported in 2023 SCC Online 643
g) In the case of T.G.Ahok Kumar Vs. Govindammal and another reported in (2010) 14 SCC 370
h) In the case of Har Vilas Vs Mahendra Nath and another reported in (2011) 15 SCC 377
