1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. Chamber Summons No.730 of 2008 In Execution Application No.150 of 2006 In Suit No.3193 of 1996 Rajesh Y. Shenoy. .. .. Plaintiff v/s. Krishnanand Rao & ors. .. .. Defendants And Ms.Amritha K. Rao. .. .. Applicant Mr.S. Joshi with Mr.R.A. Mehta for Applicant. Mr.V.R. Tripathi for Plaintiff. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 15th July, 2008 P.C. : 1.The Suit is between the family members. The Plaintiff claims as the legatee under the Will left by his grandfather. The property has been in the possession of Defendant No.1 in the Suit. 2.The suit has been decreed on 22.9.2004 ex-parte under the provisions of Order 8 Rules 5 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure since no Written Statement was filed despite many adjournments granted. 2 3.The decree was sought to be executed under Execution Application No.150 of 2006 taken out in August 2006. 4.Defendant No.1 twice applied for setting aside the ex-parte decree under the Notices of Motion bearing No.1385 of 2006 and 4164 of 2007. Consent Terms have been filed in these Notices of Motion, essentially of similar nature. It is to grant time to Defendant No.1 to hand over possession of the suit premises in consideration of the Plaintiff' s forbearing to execute the decree for a particular time. Consequently, under the first Consent Terms dated 12.10.2006, Defendant No.2 was to hand over possession by 31.10.2007, a year after the Consent Terms were signed and the Plaintiff agreed not to execute the decree till then. In the second Notice of Motion of similar kind further time was allowed by the Plaintiff in Consent Terms executed by the parties such that under the Consent Terms executed on 28.11.2007, Defendant No.1 agreed to hand over possession on 30th April 2008 and the Plaintiff agreed not to execute the decree until that date. 5.After the time granted to hand over possession was over, Defendant No.1' s daughter, the Applicant herein, has taken 3 out this Application. It may be mentioned straightway that decree which is passed is against the Defendants and their successors-in-title includes their heirs, agents, servants etc. Hence, the successors-in-title of any Defendant cannot have a separate cause of action by way of a Chamber Summons. Any decree passed against any Defendant which gives them a cause of action would be challengable only in a separate Suit against such Defendants for damages or otherwise. 6.Nevertheless, the Applicant has sought to take out this Chamber Summons on the plea that the property never belonged to her grandfather one Adige Rao. The same person was the grandfather of the Plaintiff also. Hence, the Applicant and the Plaintiff are cousins. The Applicant contends, completely without particulars, that the property in Suit was the HUF property of her great-grandfather and could never have been disposed of under the Will of the grandfather which came to be probated and upon which this Suit was filed by the Plaintiff as the legatee thereunder. 7. It is the Applicant' s case that she knew nothing about the succession of the property except for the fact that it is HUF property which information was derived “somewhere around 21.4.2008” when her uncle came to her residence and had 4 an argument with her father. The Applicant has not taken any steps to find out and produce before the Court any document to substantiate her contention about the title of the property in Suit. The Applicant took out this Chamber Summons on 8th May 2008. Even at present, the Applicant has no documents to substantiate her claim. Her Advocate applies for time to enable the Applicant to obtain documents to show the title which she claims. 8. The Applicant may obtain documents and see the title and sue her father who despite such title, if any, undertook to the Court to hand over possession in the Suit filed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff would not be bound by the documents of the Applicant. The Applicant has to abide the decree as successor-in-tile of the Defendants against whom a decree is passed and execution is levied. The Chamber Summons is, therefore, entirely misconceived. The Chamber Summons is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/-. Execution shall proceed. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.]