TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 11.02.1983. Originally, the suit was filed in O.S.No. 661 of 1979 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, which was transferred to the Court of District Munsif, Thiruchengode, and renumbered as O.S. No. 841 of 1981. During the pendency of the suit, Kondappa Naicker and his wife Dhanalakshmi filed an application to get themselves impleaded as parties claiming that they purchased the suit property of 1 acre and 80 cents in Survey No. 189/1 from the respondent herein on 25.4.1980. It appears that the said petition was dismissed and thereafter, the suit was decreed ex parte as stated above. The dismissal of the said petition in the unnumbered application of the year 1983 was challenged in this Court in C.R.P. No. 1219 of 1983 and the revision petition was dismissed with liberty to the revision petitioners to file a separate suit to vindicate their rights and substantiate their claim that the said suit is of collusive character. The revision was dismissed on 9.10.1985 and pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, Kondappa Naicker and his wife Dhanalakshmi filed suit in O.S. No. 325 of 1986 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sankari, for declaration and injunction against the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laintiff Perianna Nadar examined himself as P.W.1 while the respondent herein examined himself as R.W.1 besides examining one Dhanalakshmi as R.W.2. Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked on the side of the petitioners while Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked on the side of the respondent. Exs.X.1 to X.13 have also been marked. The Executing Court, considering the case advanced on either side and accepting the case of the judgment debtor/respondent herein, dismissed the Petition as per order dated 17.4.2000. The correctness of the said order is challenged in this revision. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners argued that inasmuch the suit in O.S.No. 661 of 1979 was originally instituted in Sub-Court, Salem, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of District Munsif, Thiruchengode, and renumbered as O.S.No. 841 of 1981, for specific performance of the contract of sale on the strength of the sale agreement dated 15.7.1978 executed by the respondent herein in favour of Perianna Nadar, who filed the suit after causing lawyer's notice on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o sell property, would be bound by decree against vendors. 9. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision in Abdul Aziz and Ors. v. District Judge, Rampur and Anr. AIR1994All167 : Decree for specific performance. Execution of Objection by transferees asserting that decree was not binding on them, they being not parties to suit. Objection unsustainable, in view of doctrine of lis pendens. Said transferees were as much bound by decree as their transferor, the judgment-debtor. 10. Reliance was placed on by the learned counsel in Marappa Gounder and Ors. v. Chennimalai Gounder and Ors., 1992 T.L.N.J. 231, in which it was held as follows: The object of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act is to afford protection of law in respect of a property which is the subject matter of litigation, being alienated to the prejudice of the decree which may ultimately result in the pending suit. The law does not allow litigant parties to give others, pending the litigation rights, in the property under dispute, so as to prejudice the opposite party. The decision of the Court shall be binding not only on the litigating parties, but also on those who derive title under them by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eave Petition preferred in S.L.P. (Civil) No. (S) 20010 of 1993 was also dismissed. In view of such decree in O.S.No. 326 of 1986, the decree in O.S.No. 841 of 1981 filed for specific performance of the contract of sale is not executable. The learned counsel further submitted that inasmuch Kondappa Naicker and his wife Dhanalakshmi have not been made as parties in R.E.P.No. 59 of 1992 and in view of the fact that Kondappa Naicker and his wife Dhanalakshmi have sold 81 cents as house sites to various parties to put up various construction of houses, the decree in O.S. No. 841 of 1981 is not executable and as such, the dismissal of R.E.P. No. 59 of 1992 by the Executing Court need not be set aside. 15. It is well settled that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the scope of the decree. The deceased Perianna Nadar, husband of the first revision petitioner and father of revision petitioners 2 to 5, originally instituted a suit in Sub-Court, Salem in O.S. No. 661 of 1979, which, on transfer, renumbered as O.S. No. 841 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruchengode, for specific performance of contract of sale by the respondent herein on the strength of the agreement of sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
