Valliammal vs Sathyapriya and Others

Honourable Mr. Justice G. Rajasuria

Inveighing the order dated 5.1.2012 passed by the II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore & District, in E.A. No. 108 of 2007 in E.P. No. 211

of 2006 in O.S. No. 703 of 2001, this civil revision petition is focused. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

A recapitulation and recounting of the germane facts would run thus:

E.P. No. 211 of 2006 was filed by the decree holder for enforcing the final decree. At that time, E.A. No. 108 of 2007 was filed by the revision

petitioner-Valliammal/3rd party claiming to be the purchaser of the entire suit property from Marammal-R2 herein, who happened to be one of the

defendants in the suit.

The indubitable and indisputable, unarguable and unassailable fact is that pendente lite, so to say, pending O.S. No. 703 of 2001, the revision

petitioner-Valliammal/3rd party purchased the suit property from Marammal and it is therefore clear that Valliammal/3rd party is bound by the

ultimate decision in the suit. The final decree was for allotting shares. The revision petitioner-Valliammal could claim only the share of Marammal.

However, Valliammal would try to project and portray the case to the effect that Marammal was entitled to the entire property by virtue of

settlement in her favour, but Marammal colluded with other co-sharers and allowed the final decree to be passed.

The perusal of the judgement of the lower Court would show that the lower Court au fait with law and au courant with facts held that the

pendente lite purchaser is bound by the ultimate decision in the suit. The revision petitioner-Valliammal/third party, now cannot try to enlarge the

right of her vendor-Marammal in the suit property by filing application u/s 47 of C.P.C. Valliammal could only be taken as a person, who stepped

into the shoes of Marammal, who is very much, as on date, bound by the final decree, which is sought to be executed in E.P. Hence, the lower

Court correctly dismissed the application of the revision petitioner-Valliammal, warranting no interference in revision. In the result, the revision

petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.