Dismissed¶52

C.Jayaprakash v. Balan (Died) 1.N.Saravanamoorthy

Madras HC28 Apr 2026SA/314/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal, Section 100 CPC, Madras High Court (Vellore courts below); third-party obstruction application in execution; pendente lite purchaser; lis pendens; bona fide purchaser defence rejected; constructive res judicata barring paternity plea not raised by vendor; exparte decree in title suit; execution petition of 1992 directed to be concluded within six months per Rahul S. Shah; antecedent maintenance decree with charge (Rs.25/- per month, item 1/item 2 lands); Neutral Citation 2026:MHC:1707.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant: Second Appeal dismissed with no costs and connected CMP No.10712 of 2026 closed; Executing Court directed to dispose of E.P.No.494 of 1992 expeditiously within the six-month timeline indicated in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418. ¶52

C.Jayaprakash Vs Balan (Died) 1.N.Saravanamoorthy — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant — who purchased the suit property from the judgment debtor's chain (Kannammal from Lakshmiammal) on 16.05.1997, after the exparte decree and while E.P.No.494 of 1992 was pending — could defeat execution by pleading that he was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the proceedings. +2 more

¶41

Court's answer

The exparte decree in O.S.No.183 of 1986 was passed on 23.06.1992 and the appellant purchased the suit property only on 16.05.1997 under Ex.P6, i.e., after the decree and while E.P.No.494 of 1992 (filed in 1992) was pending; the appellant is therefore a pendente lite purchaser.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The appellant's plea regarding the paternity of Balan is barred by constructive res judicata, as the same was not raised by his vendor in the suit; the appellant, claiming right under the judgment debtor, cannot raise a point which ought to have been raised by the judgment debtor in the suit.

¶46

Key takeaways

As per the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in G.T.Girish v. Y.Subbaraju, a pendente lite purchaser cannot raise the defence of bona fide purchaser; the decree passed against the appellant's vendor (judgment debtor) is binding on him.ratio¶51
The appellant has no independent claim over the suit property; he claims right only under the judgment debtor who suffered the decree, and the decree passed against the judgment debtor is binding on the appellant.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S. Sounthar J.) dismissed SA No. 314 of 2026 filed under Section 100 C.P.C. by C. Jayaprakash, a third-party obstructor, against the concurrent dismissal of his Obstruction Application E.A.No.442 of 2007 in E.P.No.494 of 1992 in O.S.No.183 of 1986 — an exparte decree dated 23.06.1992 for declaration of title and recovery of possession obtained by Balan against Lakshmiammal and Kannammal — confirmed in A.S.No.2 of 2024. Held: (i) the plea that decree-holder Balan was not the son of Nalla Abbu Naidu was barred by constructive res judicata, since the appellant's vendors, who were parties to the suit, never disputed Balan's paternity, and a purchaser claiming under the judgment debtor cannot raise a plea his vendor failed to raise; (ii) having purchased on 16.05.1997 under Ex.P6 — after the 23.06.1992 exparte decree and while the execution petition filed in 1992 was pending — the appellant was a pendente lite purchaser who could not raise a bona fide purchaser defence, applying G.T. Girish v. Y. Subbaraju, (2022) 12 SCC 321, and the decree against his vendor/judgment debtor bound him as he claimed no independent right; (iii) no substantial question of law was made out. Directing the Executing Court to dispose of the execution petition expeditiously within the six-month timeline indicated in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, (2021) 6 SCC 418, the Court dismissed the appeal with no costs and closed the connected CMP.

¶1

2026:MHC:1707

¶2

SA No. 314 of 2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 28-04-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶7

SA No. 314 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 10712 OF 2026

¶8

C.Jayaprakash S/o Chinna Kannu, Pudupalayam Street, Gividareddipalayam Village, Ussoor Post, Vellore Tk and Dist

..Appellant(s)

Balan (Died)

1.N.Saravanamoorthy S/o Late Narayansamy, No.19, Mahalakshmi Apartment, 2nd Floor D, Hindu Colony, Nanganallur, Chennai 600 014.

¶13

Lakshmi Ammal (Died) Pushpammal (Died) Krishnaveni Ammal (Died) Kannammal (Died) Gajalakshmi (Died)

¶14

..Respondent(s)

¶15

PRAYER : Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2025 in AS.No.2 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Sub Ordinate Court, Vellore, confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 07.12.2023 in EA.No.442 of 2007 in EP.No.494 of 1992 in OS.No.183 of 1986 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Vellore.

¶16

For Appellant(s): V.Sundarraman

¶17

Page1 of 10

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

SA No. 314 of 2026

¶20

Judgment

¶21

This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2025 in A.S.No.2 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Sub Ordinate Court, Vellore confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 07.12.2023 in EA.No.442 of 2007 in EP.No.494 of 1992 in OS.No.183 of 1986 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Vellore.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.

¶23

The third party obstructor is the appellant herein. One deceased Balan filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession against one Lakshmiammal, the appellant’s vendor Kannammal and others in O.S.No.183 of 1986, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vellore and the said suit was decreed exparte on 23.06.1992. Thereafter, the decree holder filed an execution petition in E.P.No.494 of 1992. In the Execution Petition, the appellant herein / third party objector filed an Obstruction Application in E.A.No.442 of 2007 seeking declaration that the suit property belonged to him and also sought for dismissal of the Execution Petition. The Obstruction Application filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Trial Court. Challenging the same, he filed an appeal in A.S.No.2 of 2024 and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the appellant is before this Court.

¶24

__________ Page2 of 10

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

SA No. 314 of 2026

¶27

According to the appellant / third party obstructor, the suit property originally belonged to one Nalla Abbu Naidu and he married the appellant’s vendor’s vendor Lakshmiammal. After the marriage, he had illicit intimacy with one Ammakannu Ammal and neglected his wife. Hence, Lakshmiammal filed a suit for maintenance against Nalla Abbu Naidu and obtained a decree and sought for a decree of charge over the suit items 1 and 2. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and she filed an appeal in A.S.No.109 of 1973 on the file of the District Court, Vellore. The First Appellate Court fixed a monthly maintenance at Rs.25/- and also granted charge over item 2 of the property. Challenging the same, Nalla Abbu Naidu had preferred a second appeal in S.A.No.866 of 1975. Lakshmiammal filed a cross objection seeking charge over

¶28

the landed properties in item 1. The second appeal filed by Nalla Abbu Naidu was dismissed and the cross objection filed by Lakshmiammal was allowed. Ultimately, a decree was passed granting charge over the landed properties in item 1.

¶29

It is further stated that even thereafter, the said Nalla Abbu Naidu failed to pay monthly maintenance and hence, Lakshmiammal had taken the possession of the property and enjoyed the same as her absolute property. After the death of Nalla Abbu Naidu, Lakshmiammal has sold the property in favour of the appellant’s vendor Kannammal. From the said Kannammal, the appellant purchased the suit property on 16.05.1997.

¶30

__________ Page3 of 10

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

SA No. 314 of 2026

¶33

It was stated that the deceased Balan filed a false suit in O.S.No.183 of

¶34

1986 and obtained a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession. It was also stated that the appellant is a bonafide purchaser. Without putting notice to the appellant, the suit was filed by Balan. The claim of the above said Balan in the suit that he was the son of Nalla Abbu Naidu was also denied. On these pleadings, the appellant herein sought for allowing his Obstruction Application and dismissal of the Execution Petition filed by Balan / Decree Holder.

¶35

The decree holder in O.S.No.183 of 1986 viz ., Balan filed a counter and opposed the Obstruction Application. The specific case of Balan is that the appellant has no independent right to oppose the execution of the decree. It was also stated that the appellant purchased the property after passing of decree in the suit. Therefore, the purchase made by the appellant is hit by doctrine of lis pendens and sought for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

¶36

Before the Executing Court, the appellant was examined as P.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. On behalf of the appellant, 20 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P20 and on behalf of the respondents, the first respondent / Saravanamurthy was examined as R.W.1 and one Baskaran was examined as R.W.2. On behalf of the respondents, 29 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R29.

¶37

__________ Page4 of 10

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

SA No. 314 of 2026

¶40

The Execution Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner / appellant failed to establish his right over the suit property and dismissed the Objection Petition. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal in A.S.No.2 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Vellore. The First Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Execution Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the petitioner / appellant is before this Court.

¶41

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant’s vendor’s vendor Lakshmiammal obtained a charge decree against Nalla Abbu Naidu and subsequently, she possessed the property as a sole heir of Nalla Abbu Naidu and sold the same to the appellant’s vendor Kannammal. It is a specific argument of the learned counsel that the decree holder / Balan was not a son of Nalla Abbu Naidu and therefore, he could not maintain the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant had no notice of the legal proceedings between Balan and his vendors and therefore, he is a bonafide purchaser of the property. The learned counsel also submitted that the Courts below, without taking into consideration the points raised by the appellant, had erroneously dismissed the Objection Application and also the First Appeal.

¶42

Page5 of 10

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

SA No. 314 of 2026

¶45

The deceased Balan filed a suit seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession against the appellant’s vendor Kannammal and her vendor Lakshmiammal and others in O.S.No.183 of 1986. The said suit came to be decreed exparte on 23.06.1992 as seen from Ex.P19 and Ex.P20. The appellant herein is not claiming any independent right over the suit property. He is only claiming right over the property as a purchaser from Kannammal who in turn purchased the property from Lakshmiammal. The appellant’s vendor Kannammal as well as Lakshmiammal were parties to the suit filed by Balan in O.S.No.183 of 1986. In the said suit, they never disputed the paternity of Balan.

¶46

The appellant who is claiming right under judgment debtor, is not entitled to raise a point which ought to have been raised by the judgment debtor in the suit. Therefore, the issue raised by the appellant with respect to the paternity of the said Balan is barred by constructive res judicata as the same was not raised by his vendor in the suit. As mentioned earlier, the exparte decree was passed on 23.06.1992. The appellant herein purchased the suit property only on 16.05.1997 under Ex.P6. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant purchased the property only after passing of decree in the main suit. In fact, the Execution Petition had been filed by the decree holder as early as in 1992 in E.P.No.494 of 1992. Therefore, the appellant purchased the property only pending the Execution Petition.

¶47

__________ Page6 of 10

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

SA No. 314 of 2026

¶50

As per the law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in G.T.Girish Vs. Y.Subbaraju, reported in 2022 (12) SCC P.321, a pendente lite purchaser cannot

¶51

raise the defence of bonafide purchaser. The petitioner / appellant being a pendente lite purchaser , is not entitled to raise a defence as a bonafide purchaser and the decree passed against his vendor is binding on him. In any event, as mentioned earlier, the appellant has no independent claim over the suit property. He is only claiming right under judgment debtor who suffered a decree. The decree passed against the judgment debtor is binding on the appellant. Both the Courts below had rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and dismissed the Obstruction Application and the First Appeal. Hence, I do not find any serious error or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. The appellant has not made out any substantial question of law for consideration.

¶52

In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶53

Taking into consideration the Execution Petition was filed in 1992,

¶54

the Executing Court is directed to dispose of the Execution Petition as expeditiously as possible having in its mind the time line of six months as fixed

¶55

__________ Page7 of 10

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

SA No. 314 of 2026

¶58

by the Apex Court in Rahul S Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others, reported in 2021 (6) SCC 418 .

¶59

28-04-2026

¶60

Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes

¶61

GSK

¶62

__________ Page8 of 10

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

SA No. 314 of 2026

¶65

¶66

1.The Additional Sub Ordinate Court, Vellore.

¶67

2.The Additional District Munsif Court, Vellore.

¶68

__________ Page9 of 10

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SA No. 314 of 2026

S.SOUNTHAR J.

GSK

SA No. 314 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 10712 OF 2026

¶74

28-04-2026

¶75

__________ Page10 of 10

¶76

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 17.10.2025 in A.S.No.2 of 2024 (Additional Sub Ordinate Court, Vellore) dismissing the appellant's appeal and confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 07.12.2023 in E.A.No.442 of 2007 in E.P.No.494 of 1992 in O.S.No.183 of 1986 (Additional District Munsif Court, Vellore).¶15
Additional Sub Ordinate Court, Vellore · 17.10.2025
Prior proceeding
Lakshmiammal (appellant's vendor's vendor) filed a maintenance suit against Nalla Abbu Naidu and sought a decree of charge over suit items 1 and 2.¶27
Prior proceeding
She carried the matter in appeal as A.S.No.109 of 1973 before the District Court, Vellore.¶27
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court fixed monthly maintenance at Rs.25/- and granted charge over item 2 of the property.¶27
Prior proceeding
Nalla Abbu Naidu preferred second appeal S.A.No.866 of 1975 against the appellate decree.¶27
Prior proceeding
Nalla Abbu Naidu's second appeal was dismissed and Lakshmiammal's cross objection was allowed.¶28
Prior proceeding
Ultimate decree granted charge over the landed properties in item 1.¶28
Prior proceeding
After Nalla Abbu Naidu's death, Lakshmiammal sold the property to the appellant's vendor Kannammal.¶29
Prior proceeding
Appellant purchased the suit property from Kannammal on 16.05.1997.¶29
Prior proceeding
Deceased Balan filed O.S.No.183 of 1986 (District Munsif Court, Vellore) for declaration of title and recovery of possession against Lakshmiammal, Kannammal and others.¶23
Prior proceeding
The suit was decreed exparte on 23.06.1992.¶23
Prior proceeding
Decree holder filed execution petition E.P.No.494 of 1992.¶23
Prior proceeding
Appellant, as third party objector, filed Obstruction Application E.A.No.442 of 2007 claiming the suit property belonged to him and seeking dismissal of the execution petition.¶23
Prior proceeding
The Executing Court dismissed the Obstruction Application.¶23
Prior proceeding
Evidence before the Executing Court: appellant examined as P.W.1, with two other witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3.¶36
Prior proceeding
Appellant's side marked 20 documents, Exs.P1 to P20.¶36
Prior proceeding
Respondents' side: first respondent Saravanamurthy examined as R.W.1 and Baskaran as R.W.2.¶36
Prior proceeding
Respondents' side marked 29 documents, Exs.R1 to R29.¶36
Prior proceeding
Appellant's appeal A.S.No.2 of 2024 against dismissal of the Obstruction Application was also dismissed.¶23
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Execution Court.¶40

C.Jayaprakash v. Balan (Died) 1.N.Saravanamoorthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Jayaprakash v. Balan (Died) 1.N.Saravanamoorthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkatalakshmiamma, Vs Chinna Venkatamma

Thailammal Vs Kalaivendan

Guruvayurappan Textiles (Pvt) Limited, Vs Thiru. Radhakrishnan, Ias., and 2 others

L.Kannan, Vs P.Saravanan

V.G.Jeganathan Vs Krishnasamy

Venkatesan Vs Jayalakshmi