Karnataka High Court (Single Judge, Sachin Shankar Magadum J.) dismisses RFA No.69 of 2026 filed by third-party applicants — pendente lite purchasers of an undivided 50% share from Smt.Kokila, widow of one of two original decree-holder brothers, under a registered sale deed dated 11.11.2021 — against the order dated 10.10.2025 of the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting in Execution Petition No.25013/2016 (decree in O.S.No.15397/2004) their application under S.47 r/w Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 r/w S.151 CPC. Held: (i) questions of title set up by such transferees cannot be adjudicated within the narrow compass of execution proceedings arising out of a decree for possession passed against tenants; (ii) an undivided share in joint property does not translate into a demarcated, identifiable parcel absent lawful partition, and a schedule with specific boundaries cannot override the recital of an undivided 50% transfer, such recital being in derogation of this Court's law that a joint family member cannot sell an undivided share by specifying boundaries; (iii) the decree for possession being joint and indivisible, a transferee from one co-owner cannot carve out a defined portion and claim exclusive possession at the execution stage; (iv) a purchaser claiming through one decree holder is a representative-in-interest bound by the decree, is hit by lis pendens, acquires no right superior to the vendor's, and cannot maintain a third-party application under Order XXI Rule 97, which is intended for strangers asserting independent rights adverse to or dehors the decree; accordingly the application was not maintainable and was rightly rejected, Point (i) being answered in the affirmative. Clarified: the appellants are not remediless — once the decree holders recover possession from the tenants, the benefit enures to the extent of the undivided share conveyed, and the appellants may then work out derivative remedies (including partition and separate possession) through the interest of their vendor; dismissal does not extinguish their substantive rights under the sale deed dated 11.11.2021.
