JUMAILATH BEEVI Vs. RAJEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The scope of protection which a transferee pendente lite can seek from an executing court arises for consideration. The transferees pendente lite challenge the dismissal of their petition filed under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, (for brevity 'CPC').

(2.) Petitioners are transferees pendente lite. They had purchased 4.86 ares of property by Sale Deed No. 1149/10 dated 8.7.2010 of the SRO Kadakkavur from respondents 3 and 4. Transferors of the petitioners are respondents 3 and 4, who had purchased the property from the 2 respondent as per Sale Deed No. 731/2008. According to the petitioners, it was only in 2015, that they came to know that the 1 respondent had secured sale certificate in E.P. No. 23 of 2013, with respect to the scheduled property and even though, 1 respondent had legally ousted respondents 2 to 4, petitioners continued in physical possession and an application was filed as E.A. 100 of 2015 in E.P. No. 23 of "C.R." 2013 in O.P. No. 1350 of 2008 under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC, to re-convey their rights and possession. However, by Ext. P8 order, the application was dismissed. This Original Petition is preferred against Ext. P8 order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) respondent filed an objection contending that she was the wife of the 2 respondent and that after their marriage fell into troubled waters, to defeat her marital claims, the 2 respondent executed Sale Deed No. 731/2008 in favour of respondents 3 and 4 who are his sister and brother-in-law. O.P. No. 1350 of 2008 was instituted by the 1 respondent before the Family Court, Nedumangad for setting aside Sale Deed No. 731/2008 and for recovery of gold ornaments and money. An attachment of the property covered by the aforesaid sale deed was also obtained in the suit for securing the monetary claim. The suit filed as O.P. No. 1350 of 2008 was allowed on 25.7.2011 and the Sale Deed No. 731/08 was set aside as per Ext. P5 Judgment. The 1 respondent was found entitled to realize the amounts claimed in the suit charged on plaint 'A' schedule property. According to the 1 respondent, though the respondents 2 to 4 attempted to get the decree set aside, the same was dismissed and thus the judgment in O.P. No. 1350 of 2008 on the files of the Family Court, Nedumangad, had become final. The 1 respondent purchased the scheduled property through court auction on 15.10.2013 in execution of the decree in Ext. P5. The 1 respondent further avers that petitioners are alleged purchasers by sale deed No. 1149/2010, and their purchase of the property was during the pendency of the litigation in O.P. No. 1350 of 2008 on the files of the Family Court, Nedumangad and during the subsistence of an attachment issued in that case. It is further pleaded that the claim of petitioners is baseless not only due to the principle of lis pendens but also due to the setting aside of their prior title deed and the petitioners have not acquired any title to the property to file a petition under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC.