Regular First Appeal under S.96 CPC by third-party applicants — pendente lite purchasers under a registered sale deed dated 11.11.2021 of an undivided 50% share from Smt.Kokila, widow of one of the decree-holder brothers — against the Executing Court's order dated 10.10.2025 dismissing their I.A.No.1/2023 under S.47 r/w Order XXI Rules 97 & 101 r/w S.151 CPC in Ex.Petition No.25011/2016 (decree in O.S.No.15397/2004 for declaration of title and recovery of possession against tenants; appeals dismissed; SLP No.14566/2016 dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29.09.2021). Held, dismissing the appeal: (1) questions of title founded on the sale deed cannot be adjudicated within execution of a possession decree; an undivided share confers no demarcated parcel or exclusive possession absent partition by metes and bounds, and a transferee from one co-owner cannot carve out a defined portion at the execution stage; (2) the purchasers, being pendente lite transferees hit by lis pendens who trace title through a decree holder without asserting independent adverse title, are representatives-in-interest bound by the decree and cannot maintain an Order XXI Rule 97 third-party objection, which is intended for strangers asserting independent rights; (3) the application was not maintainable and was rightly rejected — Point (i) answered in the affirmative. Clarified: the dismissal does not extinguish the appellants' substantive rights under the sale deed; after possession is recovered in execution they may work out their remedies (e.g., partition and separate possession) to the extent of the vendor's interest.
