USHA SINHA versus DINA RAM & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 4 S.C.R. 1192 · Decided: 14-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 1192 
USHA SINHA 
v. 
DINA RAM & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1998 of 2008) 
MARCH 14, 2008 
(C.K. THAKKER AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O.XXI Rule 29 r/w s. 151; 
rr. 96 - 102; O.XXXIX rr. 1 & 2: 
C 
Execution of a decree - Appellant purchasing property 
Jn question from defendants against whom a title suit was 
pending -
Granting of ex-parte decree by trial Court -
Execution - Filing of title suit by appellant in respect of share 
in property purchased from defendants and filing of an 
D application for injunction against decree holder for staying the 
execution till final disposal of title suit - Rejected by trial Court 
· - Filing of application for staying the proceeding before 
Executing Court - Allowed by the Executing Court - Revision 
application allowed by High Court - Correctness of - Held: 
E R. 102 of O.XXI C. PC. is based on equity and good conscience 
-
Transferee should be careful before purchasing of the 
property which is the subject matter of litigation - Transferee 
from judgment debtor presumed to be aware of the 
proceedings before a Court of Law- Purchaser of suit property 
F during pendency of litigation has no right to resist/obstruct 
execution of decree passed by a competent Court -
If 
resistance caused or obstruction offered by the transferee, he 
cannot seek ben.efit of r. 98 or 100 of O.XXI, CPC - Resistance 
offered by transferee at the instance of judgment debtor cannot 
G be found as resistance offered by a person in his own right -
Doctrine of Lis Pendens attracted to transaction in question 
- .Hence, High Court was right in allowing the Revision 
Application holding that the case is covered by r 102 of O.XXI 
C. PC - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52. 
H 
1192 
USHA SINHA v. DINA RAM & ORS. 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of 'Lis Pendens' - Applicability of 
Words and Phrases: 
1193 
A 
'Transferee from the judgment debtor' - Meaning of in 
the context of r. 102 of O.XXI C. PC, 1908. 
8 
Respondent filed a title suit in respect of certain 
properties against defendant Nos. 1 to 5. During pendency 
of the suit, defendant Nos. 4 & 5 allegedly sold their share 
in the said properties to the appellants by a registered c 
sale deed. Later, an ex-parte decree was passed in the said 
case against the defendants. Another title suit was filed 
by the appellant and others against the respondent and 
others on the ground that she was the absolute owner of 
the property as she had purchased the property and 0 
prayed that the decree passed in the earlier title suit in 
favold:r of respondent be declared null and void as the 
respondent has no right, title or interest in the property. 
In the meantime, respondent, the decree-holder, filed an 
execution petition for executing the decree passed in his 
favour. The appellant filed an application for injunction u/ E 
0.39 rr.1 & 2 praying for stay of the execution till the title 
suit filed by her was finally disposed of. The application 
was rejected by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the order of 
the trial Court, she filed an application before the 
Executing Court for staying the execution. The application 
F 
was allowed by the Executing Court. The respondent 
approached the High Court by filing a Revision Petition, 
which was allowed by the High Court by setting aside the 
order of the Executing Court. Hence, the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the High Court was wholly G 
in error in allowing the revision filed by the respondent 
and in setting aside the order passed ~y the Executing 
Court granting stay of proceedings in Execution Case; 
that the Executing Court was right in relying on the H 
1194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 
A circumstance that when a substantive suit is filed by the 
appellant to set aside ex-parte decree passed in favour of 
the respondent in Title Suit, during the pendency of such 
suit, execution proceedings ought to be stayed; that the 
Executing Court passed an order in the light of the fact 
B that a suit filed by the appellant was pending final disposal 
which was a relevant consideration and the said order 
should not have been interfered with by the High Court 
and that the High Court was wrong in invoking r. 102 of 
Order XXI of the Code and in holding that the appellant 
c had no right to seek protection. 
Respondent submitted that the Executing Court was 
wholly wrong in entertaining application filed by the 
appellant particularly after reject
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.