The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment conveyed on October 14, 2024, tended to a respectful debate concerning the execution of a last declare passed in a segment suit. The case included the appellants, Renjith K.G. and others, who were legitimate beneficiaries of the initial offended party. The debate spun around the ownership and rights over a parcel of arrive, specifically 1 acre and 57 cents of property in Kerala.
The appellants fought that the respondents, who were not portion of the first suit, had no lawful claim over the property. The respondents, on the other hand, declared their right, title, and intrigued within the property based on a exchange of rights that happened some time recently the ultimate proclaim was passed. They contended that they had been wrongfully confiscated amid the execution of the declare and looked for re-delivery of ownership.
One of the key legal issues in the case was whether the respondents, as "pendente lite" (during litigation) transferees, may challenge the execution of the judgment. The appellants asserted that the respondents, as pendente lite transferees, lacked standing to contest the order. However, the Supreme Court reiterated the long-standing legal concept that such transferees are not prevented from seeking remedy and that their rights, if any, can be determined under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The Court also addressed the respondents' limiting concerns. They contended that the execution request, recorded in 1991, more than two decades after the ultimate arrange, was banned by confinement. The Supreme Court maintained the choice of the Kerala High Court, which had remanded the matter for new thought by the trial court, taking off all issues, counting the address of confinement, open for adjudication​.
TAGS: Supreme Court partition suit civil appeal pendente lite transferees execution petition final decree Order 21 Rule 99 CPC property rights Kerala High Court
