LexRENJITH K.G. & OTHERS versus SHEEBA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1359 : 2024 INSC 773 Renjith K.G. & Others v. Sheeba (Civil Appeal Nos. 8315-8316 of 2014) 14 October 2024 [Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether a pendente lite transferee, a stranger to the suit can file application under Order XXI Rule 99, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking re-delivery after dispossession. Headnotes† 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 * Author 1360 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 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] Case Law Cited Chiranji Lal (D) by LRs. v. Hari Das (D) by Lrs. [2005] Supp. 1 SCR 359 : (2005) 10 SCC 746; Sriram Housing Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust (2022) 15 SCC 176 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 794 – relied on. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Limitation Act, 1963. List of Keywords Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Pendente lite transferee; “Stranger”; Stranger to the suit/decree; Not a party to the suit; Dispossession; Re-delivery; Third party to the decree; Rights of a decree holder; Third party to the suit; Right of a third party after being dispossessed; Execution petition for delivery of possession of the property; Execution petition time-barred; Decree passed in suit for partition; Limitation for execution. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 8315-8316 of 2014 From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2011 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in EFA Nos. 6 and 7 of 1998 [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1361 Renjith K.G. & Others v. Sheeba Appearances for Parties Rajeev Mishra, Sanand Ramakrishnan, Thomas Martin, Advs. for the Appellants. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv., Nishe Rajen Shonker, K.S. Bharathan, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Ajith Anto Perumbully, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.