High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an execution petition after the trial court allowed third party applications disputing ownership. The court ruled that no portion survived for recovery.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1847 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1847 of 2008
and M.P.Nos.1 of 2008 & 1 of 2014
1. R.Raghunath
2. Keerthana Gayathri
3. Minor. Vanthana Gayathri
Rep by NF & father &
Guardian R.Raghunath ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. A.Sampathraj
2. R.Jayakumari
3. Punitha Sampathraj
4. Jeevamurugesan
5. B.D.Manoharan
6. K.Ramina ... Respondents
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 14.12.2007 made in E.P.No.57 of 2006 in O.S.No.226 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram.
For Petitioners : Mr.Sriram
For Respondents
For R1-R4,R6 : No appearance
For R5 : Mr.Govarthan
for Mr.V.Srikanth
Page 1 of 10
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1847 of 2008
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the learned District Munsif Tambaram in E.P.No.57 of 2006 in O.S.No.226 of 2005, thereby dismissing
the execution proceedings filed by the petitioners.
exparte and the suit was decree in favour of the petitioners.
of 2007 alleging that they owned the property to an extent of 357 sq.ft., out
Page 2 of 10
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1847 of 2008
of 12480 sq.ft., comprised in survey No.296/1A and 296/1B1 situated at
Mudichur Road, West Tambaram, Chennai-45, by way of registered sale deed dated 16.02.2000 vide document No.888 of 2000. There are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property and the electricity connection also stands in their names. The Execution Court allowed the said petitions and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners also preferred civil miscellaneous appeal before this Court and it is pending.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed this present civil revision petition.
that there are seven schedules mentioned in the suit property as Schedule A to G. The recovery of possession prayed insofar as the B Schedule property,
Page 3 of 10
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1847 of 2008
which is marked as ABCD in the rough sketch annexed along with the
plaint. He further submitted that though the petitioners failed to mention the
extent of the suit B Schedule property and it is admitted case of the objectors that they purchased only 357 sq.ft., out of 12480 sq.ft., comprised in survey Nos.296/1A and 296/1B1 as such, the Execution Court ought not to have dismissed the execution petition and the same is very much survive
in respect of remaining portion of the B schedule property. Though the petitioners filed appeal as against the order passed in E.A.Nos.56 & 57 of 2007, the execution petition filed in pursuant to the decree passed insofar as
all the prayers are concerned. Therefore he prayed to set aside the impugned
order by allowing the present civil revision petition.
Honourable Court may be pleased to
schedule property i.e., ABCD marked portion in the plaint plan;
Page 4 of 10
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1847 of 2008
2. Grant a mandatory injunction in favour
of the plaintiffs directing the defendants to remove the construction put-up in the C schedule mentioned property ie., CDEF marked portion in the plaint plan and failing which the same may be
done through Court;
of the plaintiffs restraining the 1st defendant or his agents and men from in any way putting up further construction in the suit site;
of the plaintiffs restrining the 1st defendant or his agents and men from in any way alienating or encumbering any portion of the suit site;
such or other orders as may be deem fit in the circumstances of the above case."
schedule of property:-
Page 5 of 10
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1847 of 2008
"A- Schedule
The piece and parcel of vacant land situated at No.166, Tambaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengai Anna District, bearing Survey Nos. 296/1A measuring North to South on the easter side 240 feet; North to South on the western side 240 feet; East to Wst on the southern side 42 feet, East to West on the northern side 42 feet and total extent of 10,080 sq.ft. Boundaries of the
property North by Kundru Poramboke South by Mudichur Road East by Ranganathan and Palani Property West by Murugan Stores property. B-Schedule
In the above A schedule the ABCD marked portion in the plaint plan (Plots 4 & 5)
C-Schedule
In the above A schedule the CDEF marked portion in the plaint plan (Plots 6 &7)
Page 6 of 10
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1847 of 2008
D-Schedule
Purchased under Document No.5207 of 1998 by the 3rd defendant in purusance of the sale deed dated 20.9.1998. In the above A schedule property 300 sq.ft., of undivided share.
E-Schedule
Purchased under Document No.5208 of 1998 by
the 4th defendant in pursuance of the sale deed dated 22.7.1998. In the above A schedule property 300 sq.ft., of undivided share.
F-Schedule
Purchased under Document No.3928 of 1998 by the 5th defendant in pursuance of the sale deed dated 22.6.1998. In the above A schedule property 357 sq.ft. of undivided share.
G-Schedule
Purchased under Document No.1874 of 1998 by the 6th defendant in pursuance of the sale deed dated 33.3.1998. In the above A schedule property 357 sq.ft. of undivided share. "
Page 7 of 10
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1847 of 2008
shown as under :-
The B schedule property is marked as ABCD in the A schedule property.
According to the objectors, they purchased the marked portion ABCD in the
Page 8 of 10
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1847 of 2008
B schedule property viz., plot Nos. 4 & 5. Admittedly, no prayer sought for in respect of A schedule property. Therefore, the entire B schedule property purchased by the objectors and they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Therefore, after allowing the petitions in E.A.No.56 & 57 of 2007, nothing survive in the execution petition and the trial Court rightly
dismissed the execution petition and this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. However the petitioners
are at liberty to file appropriate petition, after passing the order in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed as against the order passed in E.A.Nos. 56 & 57 of 2007 by this Court.
stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
02.02.2021
Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order rts
Page 9 of 10
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1847 of 2008
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
To
To
1. The District Munsif Court,
Tambaram.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1847 of 2008
and M.P.Nos.1 of 2008 & 1 of 2014
02.02.2021
Page 10 of 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the execution petition was rightly dismissed following the allowance of third party applications regarding property ownership.
Whether any survival in the execution petition remained regarding the B Schedule property portion after the third party orders.
R.Raghunath
Keerthana Gayathri
Vanthana Gayathri
A.Sampathraj
R.Jayakumari
Punitha Sampathraj
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
