SARASWATI DEVI GUPTA versus SUDHA RANI AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 746 · Decided: 14-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SARASWATIDEVIGUPTA 
v. 
SUDHA RANI AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 14, 2005 
B 
[B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 21 Rule 16-Application for execution by transferee of decree-
C Decree-holder transferred decree by assignment to the transferee-Supreme 
Court upheld the assignment-when the decree was put in execution, the 
judgment-debtor raised an objection that the transferee had no locus standi 
to execute the decree-The said objection was rejected by the Executing 
Court as well as the Revisional Court-But the High Court directing the 
D Executing Court to decide the question as to whether there was a genuine 
and valid assignment in favour of the transferee-Correctness of-Held: The 
right of the transferee as an assignee was upheld by Supreme Court-
Therefore, the High Court was clearly in error in directing that the same 
question, which was finally determined by Supreme Court, shall be gone into 
once again by the Executing Court-this amounted to directing the Executing 
E Court to go behind the decree which had attained finality-High Court 
judgment set aside. 
One 'R' filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a 
house in question. The trial court dismissed the suit but the appellate court 
allowed the appeal. On the death of 'R' the appellant was brought on record 
F since she claimed that the late 'R' had assigned his interest in the decree in 
her favour. The High Court allowed the second appeal preferred by the 
defendant-respondent 
The appellant filed an appeal before this Court which was allowed. At 
that stage a contention was advanced before this Court that the appellant, who 
G was the transferee from the decree-holder, had no locus standi to prefer the 
appeal. This Court rejected the said contention on the ground that such a 
contention was not raised before the High Court despite liberty given by the 
High Court to raise the said contention. 
The decree was then put in execution and the respondent filed an 
II 
746 
SARAS WA Tl DEVI GUPTA v. SUDHA RANI [B.P. SINGH.J.] 
747 
objection under Order 21Rule16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1980 that A 
the transferee had no locus standi to execute the decree. The Executing Court 
as well the Revisional Court rejected the objection. However, the High Court 
directed the Executing Court to decide the question as to whether there was 
a genuine and valid assignment in favour of the appellant. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court by directing the Executing Court to examine 
B 
the question as to whether there was a valid assignment in favour of the 
appellant committed an error apparent on the face of record, inasmuch as 
failed to notice the finding recorded in the judgment of this Court which 
conclusively decided the question of locus standi in favour of the appellant. In C 
view of the judgment of this Court upholding the right of the appellant as an 
assignee, no challenge to her locus standi as an assignee could be entertained 
by any Court thereafter. The High Court was clearly in error in directing 
that the same question, which was finally determined by this Court, shall be 
gone into once again by the Executing Court. This amounted to directing the D 
Executing Court to go behind the decree which had attained finality. 
(750-D-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6708 of2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.7.99 of the Allahabad High Court 
in R.P. No. 64773/96 in C.M.W.P. No. 8532of1996. 
E 
R.C. Verma, Ms. Jyoti Saxena, B.B. Sinha and M.P. Shorawala for the 
Appellant. 
Sarvesh Bisaria and Anil Nag (NP) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
8.P. SINGH, J. This Appeal by Special Leave is directed against the 
Order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Review Petition No.64773 
of 1996 dated 22.7.1999 whereby the High Court summarily dismissed the 
Review Petition preferred by the appellant herein. By its Order dated August 
F 
30, 1996 the High Court had directed the Executing Court to entertain and G 
decide the question as to whether a valid assignment of the decree had been 
made in favour of the appellant/assignee. 
The facts of the case may be briefly recapitulated:-
Suit No.23 of 1972 was filed by one Raghu Nath Prasad for specific H 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A performance of an agreement to sell the house in question. Shamsher Bahadur 
was the defendant in the said su

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.