JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by the decree-holder against an order of the executing court holding that an objection under Order 21, Rule 100 C. P. C. was maintainable by Ram Singh respondent No. 1 who was a transferee pendente lite from the judgment-debtor in a suit for possession of immovable property.
(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the decision is erroneous, being directly in contravention of Order 21, Rule 102 C. P. C. which runs as follows: - "nothing in rules 99 and 101 shall apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment-debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed or to the dispossession of any such person. " On behalf of Ram Singh it was contended that on the day on which the house in question was sold to him by Hukam Puri no suit for appeal was pending in respect of it and therefore Hukam Puri cannot be held to be a judgment-debtor which is defined under sec. 2 (10) C. P. C. as follows: - "judgment-debtor' means any person against whom a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made. " The house in question originally belonged to Hukam Puri who gifted it to his sister Smt. Rukma by means of a registered-sale-deed dated 21. 10. 54. Smt. Rukma sold it to Madanlal on 29. 8. 57. On 1. 4. 58 Madanlal instituted the suit for possession over the house against Hukam Puri and Smt. Rukma. This suit was dismissed on 31. 7. 61 by the Civil Judge, Jodhpur. An appeal was preferred against the decree on 7. 6. 61. The suit was ultimately decreed on 19. 7. 62. The argument on behalf of Ram Singh is that on 3. 8. 61 when the sale-deed in his favour was executed by Hukam Puri and possession was transferred Hukam Puri was not a judgment-debtor. This argument is untenable. A decree was ultimately passed in the suit against Hukam Puri and so he was a judgment-debtor within the meaning of sec. 2 (10) and also within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 102 C. P. C. The marginal heading of rule 102 is ''rules not applicable to transferee lite pendente". The rule embodies the principle underlying sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It enacts that a transferee pendente lite cannot get the benefit of the procedure under rules 99 and 101. The learned counsel for Ram Singh purported to rely on the decision in Kanagasabhai vs. Poornathammal (1 ). There is nothing in that decision to support his contention. On the contrary that decision supports the applicant. In that case the suit for recovery of possession was filed on 18. 11. 43. After the institution of the suit the defendant transferred the property on 24. 11. 43 in favour of one Kanagasabhai Pathar who took possession over it. It was held that the defendant Marimuthu Ammal was a judgment-debtor within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 102 C. P. C. and the words "transferred the property" were wide enough to include both "transfer of title" as well as ''transfer of possession. In other words the decision lays down that rule 102 is applicable to all transfers made by the unsucces-sful defendant after the institution of the suit even though they might have been effected before a decree was passed against the defendant. I accordingly allow the revision application and set aside the order of the executing court. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of this revision application. .;