Pendent Lite Transferee Who Is A Stranger To Suit Can Seek Redelivery Under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that a stranger to the suit including a pendent lite transferee can seek redelivery under Order XXI Rule 99 of Code of Civil Procedure after he has been dispossessed.
The Court observed thus while considering an appeal against the order passed by the Kerala High Court.
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that "“any person” not a party to the suit or in other words a stranger to the suit can seek redelivery, after he has been dispossessed. The term “Stranger” would cover within its ambit, a pendent lite transferee, who has not been impleaded.."
AoR Sanand Ramakrishnan represented the appellants, while Senior Advocate Jayanth Muth Raj appeared for the respondent.
The appellants had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their shares in some immovable properties. In the final decree, there was no order directing the parties to furnish stamp papers for engrossing the decree.
The predecessor of the respondents claimed right, title and interest by virtue of an assignment deed executed by another party. Pursuant to the order of the Executing Court, the other party was dispossessed from the subject property, in which, he was occupying and the possession was handed over to the appellant. After repeated challenges, the applications preferred by the predecessor of the respondents seeking re-delivery of possession and damages, contending inter alia that the Execution Petition was barred by limitation, came to be allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration, by the judgment impugned
The appellants argued that the predecessor of the respondents being a pendente lite transferee, was not entitled to file an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of the CPC and raise the question of limitation of the Execution Petition, so as to deprive the right of the appellants to enjoy the fruits of the decree.
The Supreme Court stated that Order XXI Rule 99 of the CPC outlined that where any person other than the judgment debtor was dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property, or where such property was sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession.
The Bench referred to its decision in Sriram Housing Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust, wherein it was held that a person who was never dispossessed from the property cannot be entitled under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure to make an application seeking appropriate relief to be put back in possession.
“Therefore, once an application under Order 21 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 21 Rule 101 which bars a separate suit by mandating the execution court to decide the dispute,” the Bench remarked.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Renjith K.G. & Ors. v. Sheeba (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 773)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Sanand Ramakrishnan; Advocates Sudhir Walia, Niharika Ahluwalia, Arpit Sharma, Shreya Bansal, Kartikeya Kanojiya, Shrestha Narayan and Urmi H. Raval
Respondent: Senior Advocate Jayanth Muth Raj; AOR Nishe Rajen Shonker; Advocates K.S. Bharathan, Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar and Ajith Anto Perumbully
