THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT No.92 of 2020

JUDGMENT:

This appeal suit is filed against the Order dated

10.02.2020 in E.A.No.20 of 2015 in E.P.No.176 of 2015 in O.S.No.60 of 2006, passed by the learned II-Additional District Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The appellants/claim petitioners are the third parties to the suit. They are claiming the subject property basing on the agreement of sale dated 06.07.2005 executed in their favour by the original owner i.e., respondent No.2/JDr. A decree of specific performance granted in favour of the appellants/claim petitioners herein against the respondent No.2/JDr in O.S.No.297 of 2006 dated 25.06.2008. Pursuant to the said decree, the respondent No.2/JDr and her family members have executed a registered sale deed vide document No.2332/2013 dated 13.03.2013 in favour of the appellants/claim petitioners and thus they claim that they have become the absolute owners and possessors of the subject property.

3. Whereas, the respondent No.1/DHr i.e., subsequent purchaser, had obtained the agreement of sale for the same subject property from the respondent No.2/JDr on 23.10.2005, which was culminated in filing a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.60 of 2006, that resulted in the decree levied in execution.

4. Appellants herein have filed a claim petition before the executing Court under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC to dismiss the execution petition filed by the respondent No.1/DHr. The respondent No.1/DHr had also filed the counter in the said petition. The executing Court after conducting enquiry vide Orders dated 10.02.2020, dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants herein in E.A.No.20 of 2015 in E.P.No.176 of 2015, holding that the suit instituted by the appellants is later in point of time and the sale deed dated 13.03.2013 was obtained after the degree in favour of respondent No.1/DHr. Therefore, the claim petition filed by the appellants is not maintainable as they are the purchasers during the pendent lite and they are not bona fide purchasers for value. Aggrieved by the said Order, appellants/claim petitioners preferred the present appeal suit.

5. A list of important dates and events is table hereunder:

6. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the executing Court did not frame proper points for consideration. Admittedly, there are two decrees by two competent Courts of law and the point that would arise for consideration is as to whether the decree in favour of the appellants herein will have precedence over the decree in favour of the respondent No.1 in the matter of allowing the claim petition. The agreement of sale in favour of the claim petitioner was dated 06.07.2005 and the agreement of sale in favour of the respondent No.1 was dated 23.10.2005. It is well settled that a decree passed by the competent Court of law continues to be a decree enforceable in law and the decree will not lost its significance, importance and executability unless it is set aside in accordance with law. In any event, the respondent No.1 has not challenged the decree obtained in favour of the appellants herein. He also contended that merely because there is some delay in execution, it cannot be said that the decree was not enforceable or not valid. Further, the payment of additional amount would show that in order to buy peace, appellants herein parted with additional amounts and got the sale deed executed by all other family members and third parties. Merely because the sale deed was got executed by other family members, it cannot be said that the sale deed obtained by the appellants is not bona fide. Hence, the sale deed under Ex.A1 dated 13.03.2013, vide document No.2332 of 2013, executed pursuant to and in furtherance of the decree in O.S.No.297 of 2006 dated 06.02.2006 is valid and binding on all the respondents herein.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 in his arguments stated as follows:

a) In agreement between the appellants and res