Case Note & Summary
The revision application was filed by Rajkumar Singh challenging the order dated 30.8.2016 passed by the District Judge-13, Nagpur, rejecting his application (Exh.32) filed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 281/12. The applicant sought dismissal of the execution application on the ground that he had purchased the suit property from the original owner (respondent no.2) after the decree for specific performance was passed. The background facts are that respondent no.2 was the owner of land bearing survey no.26, area 1.94 H.R., situated at Mouza Hardoli, Tah. Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur. By an agreement of sale dated 20.7.1998, respondent no.2 agreed to sell the land to the applicant (Rajkumar Singh). However, respondent no.2 avoided executing the sale deed, leading the applicant to file Spl. Civil Suit No. 376/2000 for specific performance and possession. Respondent no.2 appeared and filed a written statement admitting the agreement but claiming it was a security for a loan. The suit was contested and decreed in favour of the applicant on 31.7.2007. The decree was not challenged and attained finality. In execution proceedings (Special Darkhast No. 251/2008), a sale deed was executed through court on 24.6.2010, and possession was delivered to the applicant on 20.4.2012. Subsequently, respondent no.1 (Madhukar Barwad) filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 281/12 claiming to have purchased the suit land from respondent no.2 on 2.5.2012, after the decree and execution. The applicant filed an application (Exh.32) seeking dismissal of that misc. application. The District Judge rejected Exh.32, holding that the misc. application was maintainable. In revision, the High Court held that a third party purchaser who was not a party to the suit cannot challenge the decree in execution proceedings. The proper remedy is to file a separate suit for declaration of title. The executing court cannot go behind the decree. The revision was dismissed, and the District Judge was directed to decide the misc. application on merits in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Execution Proceedings - Third Party Rights - Order 21 Rule 97, Section 47 CPC - A third party purchaser of property, who was not a party to the suit for specific performance, cannot challenge the decree in execution proceedings by filing an application for dismissal of the execution application. The proper remedy is to file a separate suit for declaration of title and possession. The executing court cannot go behind the decree. (Paras 6-10) B) Specific Performance - Decree - Binding Nature - Third Party Purchaser - A decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale is binding on the judgment-debtor and his successors-in-interest. A purchaser pendente lite is bound by the decree under the doctrine of lis pendens. The executing court cannot entertain objections from a third party who was not impleaded in the suit. (Paras 6-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a third party purchaser of property, who was not a party to the suit for specific performance, can seek dismissal of the execution application on the ground that the decree is not binding on him, without filing a separate suit for declaration of title.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The order dated 30.8.2016 passed by the District Judge-13, Nagpur, rejecting Exh.32, is upheld. The District Judge is directed to decide Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 281/12 on its own merits in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
Law Points
- Third party purchaser cannot challenge decree for specific performance without impleading in suit
- Remedy lies in separate suit for declaration of title
- Order 21 Rule 97 CPC
- Section 47 CPC
