Madras High Court
T.Bakeerathan vs C.Jayaraman on 18 June, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
CRP.No.1608 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 18.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
CRP.No.1608 of 2024
and CMP.No.8588 of 2024
1. T.Bakeerathan
2. S.Satheesh Naveen
3.C.Vinithra
4.S.Ilaiyaraja .. Petitioners
Versus
1. C.Jayaraman
Y.S.R.Moorthy (Died)
2.Devaraj
3.Thapasi Mary
4.Y.Eknath
5.Y.Sharma
6.G.Gokuldas
Rep by Authorised Power of Attorney
M/s.R.Chitra Devi
7.S.Natarajan
8.R.Lalitha .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside
the fair and decretal order dated 02.12.2023 passed in E.A.No.3 of 2023 in
EP.No.36 of 2014 on the file of the learned Registrar, Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
Page 1 / 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm )
CRP.No.1608 of 2024
For petitioner : Mr.C.P.Hemkumar
for M/s.Ganesh & Ganesh
For respondents : Mr.P.L.Narayanan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.E.Hariharan for R1
ORDER
Challenging the order passed by the Executing Court in E.A.No.3 of 2023 in EP.No.36 of 2014, the present revision has been filed.
A. Factual Matrix
2. The first respondent has filed a suit in E.S.No.5 of 1999 on the file of the IV Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act for ejectment of the defendants contending that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property measuring 2565 sq.ft., situated in Old Survey No.37/20, New T.S.No.43, Block No.1, Kodambakkam Village, bearing Door No.19, Alagar Perumal Koil Street, Vadapalani, Chennai. The plaintiff inherited the suit property from his father. The first defendant Y.S.R.Moorthy (Deceased) has entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff's father on 23.11.1956 and till the life-time of plaintiff's father, the first defendant was a tenant having put up a construction on the demise land and residing therein. After the demise of the plaintiff's father on 26.06.1977, the plaintiff became the Page 2 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm ) CRP.No.1608 of 2024 absolute owner of the suit land the the first defendant continued to pay the lease rentals. As per lease agreement dated 23.11.1956, the monthly rent was Rs.3/- per month. The first defendant had been paying the monthly rent irregularly till January 1988 and defaulted from 01.02.1988. Thus, the plaintiff issued notice dated 26.11.1992 calling upon the first defendant to surrender vacant possession. However, in the meanwhile, the first defendant had illegally parted with the possession of the schedule land in favour of the defendants 2 and 3. Hence, the suit was filed for ejectment.
3. Written statement was filed by the defendants 1 and 2. According to them, the first defendant was enjoying the property from the year 1950 and patta was obtained in his name. The first defendant sold the property by registered sale deed dated 27.05.1998 and the defendants 2 and 3 have obtained patta in their names. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. The defendants remained exparte. On the side of the plaintiff, plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. The Trial Court framed the issues and considering the Ex.A1/lease agreement decreed the suit holding that Page 3 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm ) CRP.No.1608 of 2024 since the first defendant has accepted the relationship between the plaintiff, the first defendant is estopped from denying the title and claiming title on himself. The decree and judgment was passed on 04.11.2013.
5. Subsequently, the revision petitioners and the respondents 7 to 9 have filed petition in MP.Nos.3126 of 2014 and 3127 of 2014 to implead themselves as the defendants 6 to 13 and to set aside the exparte decree dated 04.11.2013 and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 25.02.2016.
6. When the above decree was put into execution in EP.No.36 of 2014 by the first respondent, the revision petitioners and the respondents 7 to 9 have filed application in E.A.No.31 of 2014 under Order 1 Rule 10(1) of CPC for impleading themselves as the defendants 6 to 13 and the same was dismissed by the Execution Court vide order dated 02.11.2016. Challenging the same, revision was filed in CRP.No.3477 of 2016 and the same was allowed vide order dated 03.03.2023. Accordingly, the revision petitioners are arrayed as the judgment debtors 8 to 11 and the respondents 7 to 9 are the judgment debtors 6, 7 & 12.
7. Thereafter, the revision petitioners filed application in E.A.No.3 of 2023 Page 4 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm ) CRP.No.1608 of 2024 under Section 47 read with Section 74 of CPC to declare that the above decree and judgment as against the suit property will not be binding and enforceable as against the petitioners, wherein, it is the contention of the revision petitioners that one Guruvan Ayyavu, the predecessor in title has acquired ownership over 50% undivided interest in the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 10.07.2013 in Doc.No.1804 of 2013. Similarly, one R.Indra, the other predecessor in title has acquired ownership over 50% undivided interest in the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 10.07.2013 in Doc.No.1803 of 2013. Both sale deeds are executed by one D.T.Devapradeep represented by his power of agent namely T.S.Rajendran. The said D.T.Devapradeep has acquired ownership by virtue of registered settlement deeds executed by his father and mother/defendants 2 and 3. Defendants 2 and 3 acquired ownership from the first defendant/Y.S.R.Moorthy alias Y.Sriramamurthy on 27.05.1998 registered as Doc.No.881 of 1998. The said Y.S.R.Moorthy has declared in the covenants in the sale deeds executed by him that he is the absolute owner of the suit property, he has absolute title and that there are no encumbrances on the property. Thus, the petitioners have acquired absolute title and ownership over the suit property.
8. The petitioners have also entered into construction agreements with Page 5 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm ) CRP.No.1608 of 2024 M/s.Karan Constructions for building a multiple housing unit comprising of 3 flats in the suit property land. The petitioners were alloted in the flats, assessment to tax by CMWS and Sewerage Board is also complete, EB connections also stands in their favour and revenue records are also mutated in their favour. In the meanwhile, the first respondent/decree holder has filed a suit in CS.No.296 of 2013 before this Court and injunction was granted restraining the defendants from putting up constructions on the suit land. The Trial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case held that having admitted the tenancy, now, the petitioners cannot question the title of the land and they are estopped from disputing the title of the decree holder and dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
B.Submissions of the revision petitioners
9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the boundaries set out in the lease deed dated 23.11.1956 and the sale deed dated 20.11.2013 are totally different and they do not tally each other. The lease deed measures to 2565 square feet and the sale deed measures 2712 square feet, there is a substantial difference and there is every possibility that the property which was Page 6 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm ) CRP.No.1608 of 2024 the subject matter of the lease deed and the property which was transferred by the deceased second respondent Y.S.R.Moorthy could not have been one and the same. The petitioners have purchased the suit land after verifying all the documents and they have obtained loan for construction of the building and they being bonafide purchasers of the suit property for a valid consideration will not be in a position to know about the pending litigations. Therefore, the petitioners are the absolute owner of the suit property, however, the Trial Court has not considered this aspect. Hence, seeks for allowing this revision petition. C.Submissions of the first respondent/decree holder
10. Whereas, the learned senior counsel for the first respondent submitted that ejectment suit has been filed against the defendants, wherein, the first defendant had illegally conveyed the property without any title to the defendants 2 and 3. Admittedly, the first judgment debtor was a tenant inducted into the property by way of registered lease deed, which is also marked as Ex.A1 in the ejectment suit. The defendants 2 and 3/judgment debtors 2 and 3 have settled the same in favour of his son, who in turn sold the property to the petitioner's predecessor, they all have no right whatsoever in the immovable property. Even Page 7 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm ) CRP.No.1608 of 2024 after filing of the ejectment suit, all the transactions have subsequently taken place and they all hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the revision.
11. The learned senior counsel for the first respondent relied on the following judgments:
a. Periyammal (Dead) and Ors. -vs- V.Rajamani & Anr reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507;
b. S.K.Sharma vs. Mahesh Kumar Verma reported in (2002) 7 SCC 505;
c.Usha Sinha vs. Dina Ram and others reported in (2008) 7 SCC 144;
d.Vashu Deo vs. Bal Kishan reported in (2002) 2 SCC 50
12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the first respondent and perused the materials placed on record. D.Issue to be determined Page 8 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm ) CRP.No.1608 of 2024
13. In light of the above submissions, now the following point arises for consideration:
(i) Whether the revision petitioners have better title to resist the execution proceedings?
E.Analysis Point (i)
14. It is the admitted case that one Y.S.R.Moorthy was originally inducted as a tenant in the suit property measuring an extent of 2565 sq.ft., with specific boundaries under a registered lease deed dated 23.11.1956. The said Y.S.R.Moorthy/lessee has sold the property in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 namely Deva Raj and Thapasi Mary in the ejectment suit vide sale deeds dated 27.05.1998. Ejectment suit was filed in E.S.No.5 of 1999. Though the defendants filed written statement in the suit, they have not contested the suit and the Trial Court framed issues and decreed the suit holding that since the first defendant has accepted the relationship between the plaintiff, the first defendant is estopped from denying the title and claiming title on himself. This Court is of the view that once the first defendant was inducted as a tenant on the basis of a registered lease Page 9 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm ) CRP.No.1608 of 2024 agreement, his status will be a tenant only; even after termination by lapse of time, his status would be either tenant by sufferance or holding over. These facts were never raised anywhere. Be that as it may, It is not the case of the first judgment debtor/Y.S.R.Murthy that even after efflux of time, he acquired the title by prescription. A person inducted as a tenant cannot take a plea of adverse possession since he was inducted by the original landlord. The predecessors of the revision petitioners had purchased the suit land from the first judgment debtor/Y.S.R.Murthy and thereafter, several transactions have taken place. Pending the ejectment suit in E.S.No.5 of 1999 as against the original tenant and other defendants, settlement deeds were executed by the defendants 2 and 3 in favour of their son on 10.01.2013 & 14.03.2013, who in turn, representing through a power of attorney namely T.S.Rajendiran had sold the suit property in favour of the petitioners' predecessor vide sale deeds dated 10.07.2013. The decree was passed in the Ejectment Suit No.5 of 1999 on 04.11.2013, therefore, all the transactions are hit by doctrine of lis pendens.
15. Further, it is to be noted that the decree holder has already filed a suit in Page 10 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm ) CRP.No.1608 of 2024 O.S.No.6478 of 1998 on the file of the City Civil Court seeking permanent injunction against the first judgment debtor/tenant and thereafter, he has also filed a suit in C.S.No.296 of 2013 for permanent injunction from putting up constructions as against the defendants. Pending suits, several transactions have taken place as if they are they are the absolute owner of the suit property. Therefore, any transfers effected during the pendency of the suit or after the decree being passed, the transferee from the judgment debtor is always presumed to be aware of proceedings before a court of law.
16. Section 55 (5) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 reads as follows:
55. Rights and liabilities of buyer and seller.-
...
(5) The buyer is bound—
(a) to disclose to the seller any fact as to the nature or extent of the seller’s interest in the property of which the buyer is aware, but of which he has reason to believe that the seller is not aware, and which materially increases the value of such interest;
(b) to pay or tender, at the time and place of completing the sale, the purchase-money to the seller or such person, as he directs: provided that, where the property is sold free from incumbrances, the buyer may retain out of the purchase-money the amount of any incumbrances on the property existing at the date of the sale, and shall pay the amount so retained to the persons entitled thereto;
(c) where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer, to bear any loss arising from the destruction, injury or decrease in value of the property not caused by the seller;
Page 11 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm ) CRP.No.1608 of 2024
(d) where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer, as between himself and the seller, to pay all public charges and rent which may become payable in respect of the property, the principal moneys due on any incumbrances subject to which the property is sold, and the interest thereon afterwards accruing due.
17. Therefore, it is for the purchasers, that too, from the judgment debtor should have been more vigilant in purchasing the property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Usha Sinha's case (cited supra) held that if unfair, inequitable or undeserved protection is afforded to a transferee pendente lite, a decree holder will never be able to realise the fruits of his decree. Every time the decree-holder seeks a direction from a court to execute the decree, the judgment debtor or his transferee will transfer the property and the new transferee will offer resistance or cause obstruction. To avoid such a situation, Rule 102 of Order 21 of the CPC has been enacted. Further, in paragraphs 23 and 24, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
23. It is thus settled law that a purchaser of suit property during the pendency of litigation has no right to resist or obstruct execution of decree passed by a competent court. The doctrine of “lis pendens” prohibits a party from dealing with the property which is the subject-matter of suit. “Lis pendens” itself is treated as constructive notice to a purchaser that he is bound by a decree to be entered in the pending suit. Rule 102, therefore, clarifies that there should not be resistance or obstruction by a transferee pendente lite.
It declares that if the resistance is caused or obstruction is offered by a transferee pendente lite of the judgment-debtor, he cannot seek Page 12 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm ) CRP.No.1608 of 2024 benefit of Rules 98 or 100 of Order 21.
24. In Silverline Forum (P) Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust [(1998) 3 SCC 723] this Court held that where the resistance is caused or obstruction is offered by a transferee pendente lite, the scope of adjudication is confined to a question whether he was a transferee during the pendency of a suit in which the decree was passed. Once the finding is in the affirmative, the executing court must hold that he had no right to resist or obstruct and such person cannot seek protection from the executing court. The Court stated :
“10. It is true that Rule 99 of Order 21 is not available to any person until he is dispossessed of immovable property by the decree- holder. Rule 101 stipulates that all questions ‘arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99’ shall be determined by the executing court, if such questions are ‘relevant to the adjudication of the application’. A third party to the decree who offers resistance would thus fall within the ambit of Rule 101 if an adjudication is warranted as a consequence of the resistance or obstruction made by him to the execution of the decree.
No doubt if the resistance was made by a transferee pendente lite of the judgment-debtor, the scope of the adjudication would be shrunk to the limited question whether he is such a transferee and on a finding in the affirmative regarding that point the execution court has to hold that he has no right to resist in view of the clear language contained in Rule 102. Exclusion of such a transferee from raising further contentions is based on the salutary principle adumbrated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.” (emphasis supplied)
18. Thus, this Court is of the view that after the decree being passed against the predecessors of the purchasers/revision petitioners, now, based on such purchases pendente lite, one cannot claim title to the property. The doctrine of lis pendens is based on the principle that the person purchasing property from the Page 13 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm ) CRP.No.1608 of 2024 judgment debtor during the pendency of the suit has no independent right to property to resist, obstruct or object execution of a decree. Resistance at the instance of the transferee of a judgment debtor during the pendency of the proceedings cannot be said to be resistance or obstruction by a person in his own right and therefore, is not entitled to get his claim adjudicated. The registered lease deed executed on 22.11.1956 is also established before the Civil Court which clearly indicate that the property was originally leased out to one Mr.Y.S.R.Murthy. He, in turn had made several transactions from the year 1998, that too, when the suit is already pending in O.S.No.6478 of 1998, thereafter, the plaintiff has filed an ejectment suit in E.S.No.5 of 1999 against the tenant along with the subsequent purchasers and they were parties to the suit.
19. Further, any such purchaser of a property from the judgment debtor cannot resist or make obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property as per Rule 102 of Order 21 of the CPC. Therefore, when the predecessors had no title to convey, the purchasers should have been diligent in making a reasonable enquiry as to the title. The suit property has been sold by the tenant and thereafter, a power agent had transferred to various hands, these facts Page 14 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm ) CRP.No.1608 of 2024 clearly indicate that somehow or other in order to grab the property with a malafide intentions, third party rights have been created particularly without any title. Further, since, the revision petitioners are purchasers pendente lite and they have not right to offer resistance or cause obstruction and their rights have not been crystallised in a decree, Rule 102 of Order 21 of CPC comes into operation.
20. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are difference in boundaries, it is relevant to note that the survey number of the property has not been disputed, extent is also not disputed, whereas, different boundaries has been given in all the sale deeds by adding 147 square feet, it is to be noted that boundaries cannot be static, by passage of time, the boundaries may change taking note of the various developments in the ground. Therefore, that cannot be a ground to contend that the property is a different property than the leased property. Further, in order to show that the petitioners' predecessor had title for that different property, when the Court posed a question as to the documents in order to prove such contention, no documents whatsoever was placed before this Court. Therefore, merely on the basis of purchases made during the pendency of suit and putting up construction despite an order of injunction being granted by Page 15 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm ) CRP.No.1608 of 2024 this Court in O.A.No.314 of 2013 in C.S.No.296 of 2013 which was also made absolute by order dated 06.02.2014, now the petitioners cannot contend that they have not constructed the building violating the orders of this Court.
21. Under Section 47 of CPC, the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree nor can it question its legality or correctness. But there is one exception to this general rule and that is that where the decree sought to be executed is a nullity for lack of inherent jurisdiction in the court passing it, its invalidity can be set up in an execution proceeding. Whereas, in the present case, the decree has been passed against the original tenant and others, who are party to the suit. Having filed a written statement and remained exparte which resulted in a decree for eviction, the revision petitioners, now, filing an application under Section 47 of CPC to declare the decree of ejectment as against the suit property will not be binding and enforceable against them in view of this Court cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
F.Conclusion Page 16 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm ) CRP.No.1608 of 2024
22. Therefore, when a person without making proper enquiry about title of judgment debtors and purchased the property, the same will not convey any title to such person. It is at the buyers risk for entering into such transactions. This Court is of the view that such transactions have been entered only to create further complications that too without any title, such purchase will not convey any better title to the parties.
23. Such view of the matter, I do not find any merits in this revision and accordingly, this revision stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
18.06.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking/non speaking order dhk N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Page 17 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm ) CRP.No.1608 of 2024 dhk To,
1.The Registrar Small Causes Court, Chennai
2. The Section Officer VR Section, Madras High Court CRP.No.1608 of 2024 18.06.2025 Page 18 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 08:36:18 pm )