BANUMATHI ALIAS KARUNAIAMMAL Vs. A P ATHANARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Banumathi, third party filed a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 97 and 101 read with 47(1)(3) and Section 151 of C.P.C. to declare that the 'A' Schedule property is her absolute property and also to grant an order of stay of the execution petition in E.P.No.70 of 1989 filed by the L.Rs. of the decree-holder in O.S.No.1306 of 1981. The same was dismissed. Hence, this civil revision petition.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she purchased the suit property from Guruval, the fourth respondent herein for a valid consideration on 26.4.1999. From that date onwards, she is in actual possession and enjoyment of the property. She has also obtained E.B. service connection and is also paying water tax and house tax to the Panchayat. She came to know that decree has been passed in O.S.No.1306 of 1981 in respect of the suit property. In pursuance of the orders in the execution petition, there is a disturbance to her possession by the Court Amin. So, in order to avoid the dispossession in pursuance of the decree, she filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 and Section 47 of C.P.C. to declare her right in the 'A' Schedule property and to grant stay of the execution proceedings. The said application was dismissed mainly on the ground that Order 21 Rule 97 and Section 47 of C.P.C. would not apply to third party as she is not the decree-holder or the purchaser of the suit property in execution of the decree.

(3.) This order is challenged by Mr.Manokaran, the counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the decisions in SHREENATH v. RAJESH (A.I.R.1998 S.C.1827), ELANTHAMMAL v. ALAGAR (2001(1) CTC 287),NARAYANA SARMA,N.S.S. v. GOLDSTONE EXPORTS P.LTD. (2001(4) CTC 755=2002(1) S.C.C.662) and RAJENDRAN GNANAOLIVU v. SUNDAR GNANAOLIVU (2002(2) CTC 521) contending that third party also would maintain the application under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. even before the dispossession.