Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXI, r.99 – Predecessor of the respondents, a pendente lite transferee was dispossessed from the property in execution of the decree passed in the suit, if could file application under Or. XXI, r.99 against dispossession: Held: Yes – Under Or.XXI, r.99, where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property, or where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application complaining of such dispossession – A third party to the decree has a right to approach the Court even after dispossession of the immovable property, which he was occupying – Predecessor of the respondents not a party to the suit was dispossessed from the property in execution of the decree passed in the suit and therefore, he who is purported to be a stranger to the decree can adjudicate his claim of independent right, title and interest in the decretal property as per Or.XXI, r.99 – “any person” not a party to the suit or a stranger to the suit can seek re-delivery after being dispossessed – The term “stranger” would cover within its ambit, a pendente lite transferee, who has not been impleaded – Once an application under Or.XXI, r.99 is filed, it is incumbent upon the Trial Court to consider all the rival claims including the right, title and interest of the parties under Or.21, r.101 – High Court rightly set aside the order passed in the execution petition and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration leaving all the issues including the independent right, title or interest claimed by the respondents in the property in question, to be adjudicated – No illegality in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference. [Paras 14-16, 19] Limitation – Decree passed in suit for partition – Limitation for execution – Respondent argued that the decree passed on 09.03.1970 was engrossed on the stamp paper on 19.11.1990, the execution petition for delivery of possession of the property filed only on 13.03.1991 was time-barred and the High Court rightly allowed the applications filed by the predecessor of the respondents seeking re-delivery of possession inter alia contending that the execution petition was time barred: Held: As regards the limitation for execution of a decree passed in the suit for partition, time begins to run from the date of final decree and not from the date on which it is engrossed on the stamp paper – High Court rightly set aside the order passed in the execution petition and remanded the matter to the trial court. [Paras 16, 19]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.