Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2898 (MAD)

M. Bama v. K. Ganeshamurthy

2025-08-08

N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2025
ORDER : 1. Challenging the return docket order passed by the Execution Court in an application filed by the legal heirs of the purchaser under Order XXI Rule 97 r/w. Section 151 of CPC, the revision in CRP No.2920 of 2025 has been filed. 2. Challenging the order of delivery passed ordered by the Execution Court, the revision in CRP No. 3300 of 2025,has been filed by the judgment debtor. 3. Originally, the suit has been filed for specific performance in O.S.No.55 of 1997 before the District Munsif Court, Avinashi for enforcement of an agreement dated 16.10.2025 and the suit came to be decreed exparte on 10.09.2001. The decree holder, thereafter, filed E.P.No.6 of 2002 seeking registration of the sale deed and subsequently filed E.P.No.160 of 2004, which was later renumbered as E.P.No.68 of 2017 before the Sub Court Avinashi, for delivery of possession. 4. In the execution proceedings, the judgment debtor has filed an application to set aside the exparte decree dated 10.09.2001, along with a delay petition to condone the delay of 5915 days in I.A.No.33 of 2020. The said application was dismissed by the Execution Court on 17.03.2022 and confirmed by this Court in CRP No.3088 of 2022 dated 24.04.2022. Hence, the decree and judgment against the judgment debtor reached finality. Thereafter, delivery order has been passed by the learned District Munsif, Avinashi on 17.03.2025. Challenging the same, CRP No.3300 of 2025 has been filed by the judgment debtor. 5. In the meanwhile, after passing of the decree, it appears that the suit property has been transferred to the father of the present revision petitioners in CRP No.2920 of 2025 on 19.12.2003 during the pendency of the execution proceedings. Such purchase, during the pendency of execution, is nothing, but a clear case of lis pendens. 6. The said subsequent purchaser, Mani, also filed an application under section 47 in E.A.No.41 of 2005and the same was dismissed on 13.12.2019, which also reached finality. Now, the legal heirs of said Mani have once again filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97& 99 of CPC, which has been returned by the Trial Court. Challenging the said return, the revision in CRP No.2920 of 2025 has been filed by the legal heirs of the subsequent purchaser/third party. 7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records carefully. 8. Challenging the said return, the revision in CRP No.2920 of 2025 has been filed by the legal heirs of the subsequent purchaser/third party. 7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records carefully. 8. At the outset, this Court is of the view that being the purchaser pendent lite, he or his legal heirs are barred from filing any application to resist the delivery, as per Rule 102 of Order XXI of CPC, which reads as follows:- “102. Rules not applicable to transferee pendente lite - Nothing in rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed, or to the dispossession of such person.” Therefore, the above provision makes it very clear that when the property has been transferred after decree, based on such transfer one cannot maintain application under order XXI rule 97 to adjudicate his right. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this revision in CRP No.2920 of 2025. 9. As far as revision in CRP No.3300 of 2025 is concerned, the only contention of the judgment debtor is that since she has already transferred the property during the pendency of the execution petition, the EP against her is not maintainable. Such contention has no legs to stand. It is to be noted that sale deed Has already been executed in the year 2002, i.e. much prior to the sale in favour of the subsequent purchaser. In fact, subsequent purchaser did not derive any title since the title had already been transferred by the court. Therefore, such contention has no legs to stand. It is the next contention of the revision petitioners in CRP 2920 of 2025 is that they have put up construction and made improvements. It is for them to establish before the Execution Court that such construction was put up bonafidely and, if so proved, they may be entitled to compensation. The question of bonafide improvement or construction by the subsequent purchaser can be considered only by the Execution Court. Therefore, I do not find any merit in these revisions. 10. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.