The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition seeking protection of title and possession of the property after it was decreed and held that a pendent lite purchaser is not entitled to move an application for protection against the decree-holder from dispossessing the said persons and the only course open to a pendent lite purchaser would be to get his vendor to resist the application on appropriate grounds.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner purchased land from the respondent in the revision petition under, a registered deed of sale and subsequently came to know that a suit had been filed for recovery of debt under a promissory note and the property purchased by the petitioner was also attached which was subsequently decreed and a petition was filed for execution of the said decree by sale of the property purchased by the petitioner after which the petitioner filed a petition before the Executing Order under Rules 97 to 101 of order XXI of C.P.C for protecting his title and possession over the property which was dismissed on the ground that a pendente lite a purchaser cannot resist execution.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the decree in itself was not valid as the vendor of the petitioner had not signed the pronote which was the basis of the suit.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the judgment in Usha Sinha vs. Dina Ram and ors. to argue that a purchaser Pendente lite cannot resist execution nor is entitled to move the Executing Court under Rule 97 or Rule 99 of Order XXI of C.P.C.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to the judgment in Usha Sinha vs. Dina Ram and ors. which held that a purchaser of suit property during the pendency of litigation has no right to resist or obstruct the execution of a decree passed by a competent Court and the doctrine of 'lis pendens' prohibits a party from dealing with the property which is the subject matter of the suit to state that a pendent lite purchaser is not entitled to move an application for protection against the decree-holder from dispossessing the said persons and the only course open to a pendent lite purchaser would be to get his vendor to resist the application on appropriate grounds.
The court further stated that in the present case, there was no dispute that the petitioner had purchased the property after the suit had been filed and an order of attachment had been granted against the vendor of the petitioner.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition leaving it open to the vendor of the petitioner to protect the possession of the petitioner in the event cogent and relevant grounds of defence were available.
Case Title: Rudraraju Subbaraju vs. Manthena Srinivasa Raju and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Raghunandan Rao
Case No.: C.R.P.No.1389 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. T.N.M. Ranga Rao
Advocate for the Respondent: Mrs. Nimmagadda Revathi
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
