(i)The first respondent Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Devasthanam, Madurai instituted a suit in O.S.No.123 of 1970 for recovery of temple properties against several defendants. The revision petitioner is also arrayed as 15th defendant as a legal heir of the deceased first defendant in the suit. The suit was decreed in favour of the temple on 23.12.1978. Assailing the decree, the sixth defendant one E.M.G.Soundarajan filed an appeal in A.S.No.209 of 1979. Similarly, the defendants 3 , 4, 8 to 12, 24 and 25 filed another appeal in A.S.No.9/1980 before this Court. Both the appeals were dismissed by this Court by judgment and decree dated 12.02.1986. Thereafter, a review application was taken up by the 6th defendant. In the review application, a compromise was entered between the 6th defendant and the decree holder. Based on the memo of compromise recorded before this Court, the 6th defendant agreed to pay Rs.33,00,000/- to the decree holder and agreed to pay in installments with specific dates. It is also agreed that in the event of default to pay the installments as agreed for more than a year, the property must be surrendered to the decree holder. It is to be noted that the compromise was only in respect of specific property namely cinema theatre viz., Meenakshi Talkies. As the 6th defendant defaulted in payment of installments, the Temple filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.111 of 1994 for recovery of possession. However, the above execution petition was dismissed due to stay granted by this Court in CMP.No.5991 of 1994 in AAO No.435 of 1994. However, the said AAO was dismissed on 06.11.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed an execution petition for recovery of possession, which was numbered in E.P.No.77 of 2006. It is curious to note that this execution petition No.77 of 2006 filed in view of the default committed by one of the defendants. In the mean while, the temple has already levied the execution in respect of other immovable properties in E.P.No.440 of 1990. In the above E.P, the present revision petitioner was the second respondent. Similarly, it is also to be noted that in execution petition No.77/06, this revision petitioner was not made as a respondent. As the temple filed second execution petition in E.P.No.77/2006, it was objected as time-barred by the respondents. However, the execution Court rejected their contentions. As against which, C.R.P.Nos.1982 and 1983 of 2009 were filed before this Court. This court, by an order dated 01.12.2009 disposed both the CRPs with a direction to execution Court to dispose E.P.No.77 of 2006.
