The Supreme Court in a recent decision in Renjith K.G. & Ors. v. Sheeba, Civil Appeal Nos. 8315 - 8316 of 2014 while dismissing the appeals, held that a pendente lite transferee, being a stranger to the suit, can file an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) against dispossession from the suit property.

Brief Facts:

1) The Appellants were the legal representatives of the original decree holder, who had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit properties situated in Kerala and Respondents are the legal representatives of Raghuthaman who came into the possession of part of the suit property by way of assignment from Defendant No. 10 in 1964.

2) The preliminary decree was passed on 23.10.1958 and the final decree was passed on 09.03.1970 and it was engrossed on stamp paer on 19.11.1990. The execution petition seeking delivery of possession was filed only on 13.01.1991. It is pertinent to note that Raghutaman nor his legal representatives were party to the suit or the execution petition. However, the court ordered the delivery of possession of a portion of the subject property.

3) Thereafter, Raghuthaman filed an application under O.XXI R.99 CPC to prevent dispossession, claiming his right, title and interest over the property. His application was dismissed, and he appealed to the High Court. The appeal was initially dismissed but was allowed in a review petition filed by the Respondents herein. The same has been challenged in the present appeals.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the appeals held that on a reading of Order XXI Rule 99 CPC, it is clear that where any person other than the judgement debtor is dispossessed from immoveable property by the decree holder, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession. The Court clarified that the phrase ‘any person’ used in Order XXI Rule 99 CPC means a stranger to the suit and would include a pendente lite transferee who was not impleaded in the original suit. The Court finally held that once an application under Order XXI Rule 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 Order XXI Rule 101 which bars a separate suit by mandating the execution court to decide such a dispute. The Hon’ble Court finally took note of its judgement in Chiranji Lal v. Hari Das ¹to decide whether the execution petition was time barred. The Court held that limitation period would start running from the date when the decree is passed (1970) and not from the date when it is engrossed on a stamp paper (1990). This judgement underscores the rights of a pendente lite transferee who is not impleaded in the original proceedings before the Trial Court. Order XXI Rule 99 protects the rights of a bonafide third party who has acquired rights over a property during the pendency of a litigation.

By - C. George Thomas and Ansh Mittal