Pendente Lite Transferee Being Stranger To Suit Can File Application Under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC Against Dispossession : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a pendente lite transferee, being a stranger to the suit, can file an application under Order 21 Rule 99 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) against dispossession from the suit property.

Order XXI Rule 99 CPC comes to the rescue of the person who being a stranger to the suit was dispossessed by the decree holder upon the execution of the decree. It says “where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property, or where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession." 

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan heard a case where the predecessor of the respondents was not a party to the suit and was dispossessed from the property, in execution of the decree passed in the suit.

The respondent's predecessor's application against dispossession under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC was contested by the Appellants on the ground that the predecessor of the respondents, namely Mr. Raghuthaman, being pendent lite transferee and hence would have no locus to file the application seeking re-delivery under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC.

Upholding Raghuthaman's right to file an application under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC, the judgment authored by Justice R. Mahadevan observed that “he who is purported to be a stranger to the decree, can very well adjudicate his claim of independent right, title and interest in the decretal property as per Order XXI Rule 99 CPC.”

“In so far as the claim of appellants that the predecessor of the respondents, namely Mr. Raghuthaman, being pendent lite transferee and hence would have no locus to file the application seeking re-delivery, we have already held 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.”, the court added.

No Separate Suit To Be Filed For Determination Of Rights, Title or Interests Under Order XXI Rule 101 CPC When Application Under Either Of Rules 97 or 99 Was Filed

It is worthwhile to mention that Order XXI Rule 97 CPC allows a decree-holder to apply to the court if they encounter resistance or obstruction when trying to obtain possession of a property. Whereas, Order XXI Rule 99 CPC allows a stranger to the suit to approach the civil court against the dispossession from the suit pursuant to the execution of the decree.

Moreover, Order XXI Rule 101 of CPC states that the Court while deciding an application under Order XXI Rules 97 or 99 of CPC must determine all relevant questions between the parties. This includes questions about the right, title, or interest in the property i.e., no separate suit ought to be filed under Rule 101 for determination of the rights, title, or interest in the suit property.

“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 court observed. Reference was placed on the case of Sriram Housing Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust.

"Now, as stated above, applications under Rule 97 and Rule 99 are subject to Rule 101 which provides for determination of questions relating to disputes as to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to the proceedings or their representatives on an application made under Rule 97 or Rule 99. Effectively, the said Rule does away with the requirement of filing of fresh suit for adjudication of disputes as mentioned above.", the court observed in Sriram Housing Finance's case.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment upholding the respondent's predecessor's right to file an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC was affirmed.

Case Title: RENJITH K.G. & OTHERS VERSUS SHEEBA, CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8315 – 8316 OF 2014

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 798

Click here to read/download the judgment

Adv. Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan appeared for the appellants

Adv. Mrs.Nishe Rajen Shonker appeared for the Respondent