Pendente lite transferee rights and partition decree limitation clarified: execution claims may be heard, and Article 136 runs from final decree.

A dispossessed transferee pendente lite may invoke Order XXI Rule 99 CPC to seek redelivery, and the executing court must adjudicate all questions of right, title and interest under Order XXI Rule 101 without driving the claimant to a separate suit. In execution of a partition decree, limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act runs from the date of the final decree, because engrossment on stamp paper relates back to that date and does not postpone enforceability. The execution was therefore treated as time-barred on the limitation issue, while the claim to adjudication in execution was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person claiming through a pendente lite transfer, after being dispossessed in execution, can invoke Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to seek redelivery and have his independent right, title and interest adjudicated under Order XXI Rule 101. (ii) Whether execution of a partition decree filed after engrossment of the final decree on stamp paper is barred by limitation, and whether the period under Article 136 of the Limitation Act begins from the date of the final decree or from the date of engrossment.

Issue (i): Whether a person claiming through a pendente lite transfer, after being dispossessed in execution, can invoke Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to seek redelivery and have his independent right, title and interest adjudicated under Order XXI Rule 101.

Analysis: Order XXI Rule 99 enables a person other than the judgment debtor, who has been dispossessed of immovable property in execution, to complain to the executing court. The expression is wide enough to include a stranger to the decree, including a transferee pendente lite who has not been impleaded. Once such an application is made, the executing court must decide all questions relating to right, title and interest under Order XXI Rule 101, and the matter cannot be driven to a separate suit.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability failed, and the respondents' predecessor was entitled to invoke Rule 99 and have his claim adjudicated in execution.

Issue (ii): Whether execution of a partition decree filed after engrossment of the final decree on stamp paper is barred by limitation, and whether the period under Article 136 of the Limitation Act begins from the date of the final decree or from the date of engrossment.

Analysis: A partition decree is executable from the date it is passed, and engrossment on stamp paper relates back to that date. Limitation cannot be postponed to the date when a party furnishes stamp paper, because no statutory provision makes execution dependent on such engrossment. The period under Article 136 therefore runs from the date of the final decree, not from the date of engrossment.

Conclusion: The execution was treated as time-barred on the appellants' contention being rejected, and the limitation objection was accepted in favour of the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was sustained because the respondents were entitled to seek adjudication of their claim in execution, and the decree could not be insulated from the limitation objection by postponing the start of limitation to the date of engrossment.

Ratio Decidendi: In execution of a partition decree, limitation under Article 136 runs from the date of the final decree, and a dispossessed transferee pendente lite may invoke Order XXI Rules 99 and 101 to seek adjudication of independent rights in execution.

---