N.S.S NARAYANA SARMA AND ORS. versus M/S. GOLDSTONE EXPORTS (P) LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 327 · Decided: 23-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

N.S.S. NARA Y ANA SARMA AND ORS. 
v. 
MIS. GOLDSTONE EXPORTS (P) LTD. AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 23, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder 21 Rules 97-99 and 101-
Dispossession by decree holder of purchaser-Decree of partition of the suit 
property-Transferee dispossessed of the property by decree holder-Objec-
tions filed under Order 21 Rule 99 claiming independent title to the property 
as the transferee from the Pattadars whose land did not vest in the State 
Government under the provisions of the Act-Maintainability of-Dismissal 
by Trial Court and High Court-On appeal, held the view that the transferees 
are bound by the decree as they are claiming the property through the State 
Government who were parties in the suit is unsustainable-Andhra Pradesh 
(Telangana Area) Abolition of Jagirs Regulation, 1358. (Fasli) 
One 'D' filed a suit for partition of the suit properties. A preliminary 
decree was passed which subsequently attained finality pursuant to which 
the High Court appointed a Commissioner for division of the property in 
terms of the decree. Respondent, tracing their title to transfers by some 
decree-holders filed applications before the High Court for delivery of 
possession of the property of their share which was allowed. Respondent 
then filed execution petition for delivery of possession. Appellants claiming 
to be transferees, claimed right to such property and filed objection Peti-
tion under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 101 C.P.C. resisting the 
execution. Trial Court and High Court dismissed the petitions. This Court, 
in appeal directed the parties to approach the Executing Court to decide 
the question of maintainability of the applications under Order 21 Rule 99 
C.P.C. and High Court to decide the controversies in accordance with law. 
The High Court dismissed the objections as not maintainable. Hence the 
present appeal. 
On appeal, the appellants contended that their right, title and inter· 
est in the property could not have been evicted by the preliminary decree 
passed in the matter in which they were not parties. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
327 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
HELD : 1. The appellants filed a petition before Executing Court 
claiming independent title to the property as the 1ransferees from the 
pattadars whose land did not vest in the State Government under the 
provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Jagirdar 
Regulation Act, 1958 from which they are sought to be evicted in execution 
of the decree. Thus the view taken by the Division l~ench that since the 
appellants were claiming the property through the Paigah Committee or 
the State Government, who are parties in the suit, they are bound by the 
decree, is unsustainable and does not at all stand scrutiny under law. 
[338-G; H; 339-A; BJ 
2. When any person claiming title to the property in his possession 
obstructing the attempt by the decree-holder to dispossess him from the 
said property the executing Court is competent to consider all questions 
raised by the persons offering obstruction against exucution of the decree 
and pass appropriate order which under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 
103 is to be treated as a decree. (338-D; E] 
Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd .. v. Rajiv Trust and Anr., (1998] 3 SCC 723; 
Shreenath and Anr. v. Rajesh & Ors., [1998] 4 SCC 543 and Anwarbi v. 
Pramod D.A. Joshi and Ors., [2000] 10 SCC 405, referred to. 
Usha Jain v. Manmohan Bajaj, AIR (1980) MP 146, cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7983 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.98 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in O.S.A. No. 20 of 1996. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 7984-85, 7986-88 of 2001. 
P.P. Rao, C. Sitaramaiah R.F. Nariman, S. Muralidhar, B. Nalin Kumar, 
S. Vallinayagam, M.K. Garg, Aman Lekhi, Ms. Anjali Aiyagari, Guntur 
Prabhakar, Ms. Neeru Vaid, K. Ram Kumar, B. Sridhar, A.K. Narasimha Rao 
G 
and Anis Ahmed Khan for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave is granted in all the SLPs. 
H 
The judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High 
N.S.S. NARA Y ANA SARMA '-GOLDSTONE EXPORTS (P) LID. [MOHAPATRA, J.] 
329 
Court on 10th November, 1998 disposing of a batch of appeals filed under 
Clause 15 of the Letter Patent, against the judgment of single Judge is under 
challenge in these appeals. Si
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.