Rajammal v. Parvathi

Madras HC5 Jun 2026CRP/3111/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajammal Alamelu Venkatachalam Thangaraj v. Parvathi Rajappa Madhammal Pukkampatti Panchayath; Madras High Court CRP No. 3111 of 2026 and CMP.No.13479 of 2026; Article 227 Constitution of India; Section 47 CPC objection to executability of decree; decree for mandatory injunction barred by limitation; delivery order already passed; EP.No. 31/2023; O.S. No.220 of 2000; S.A. No.446 of 2006; Special Leave to Appeal (c) No. 14290 of 2019 dismissed; removal of construction and superstructure allowed; repeat Section 47 objections rejected; revision dismissed, no costs; District Munsif Mettur Salem; judge T.V. Thamilselvi; dated 05-06-2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, the connected miscellaneous petition (CMP.No.13479 of 2026) was closed, and no costs were awarded. ¶43-44

Rajammal Vs Parvathi — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, the connected miscellaneous petition (CMP.No.13479 of 2026) was closed, and no costs were awarded.

¶43-44

Issue for consideration

Whether the executing Court rightly rejected the petitioners' application under Section 47 CPC objecting to the executability of the decree in O.S. No.220 of 2000 on the ground that the decree for mandatory injunction was barred by limitation, when the very same grounds had already been raised and negatived in the earlier proceedings.

¶39

Court's answer

Since the objections raised in the Section 47 CPC application were the very same grounds already raised before the trial Court and the appellate Court and negatived, with the second appeal dismissed confirming the findings of the courts below, the executing Court rightly rejected the repeat application and it required no interference.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The decree in O.S. No.220 of 2000 had attained finality: it was confirmed in S.A. No.446 of 2006 and the Special Leave Petition (Special Leave to Appeal (c) No. 14290 of 2019) against that judgment was dismissed, confirming the findings of the courts below.

¶38

Key takeaways

Passing observation that the decree holder had already filed an application seeking removal of the construction and superstructure, and the executing Court had allowed that application.obiter¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (CRP No. 3111 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Madras, single judge T.V. Thamilselvi J., dated 05-06-2026) filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by defendants 2 and 4 to 6 (Rajammal, Alamelu, Venkatachalam and Thangaraj) challenging the Docket order dated 30.4.2026 of the District Munsif, Mettur, rejecting their application EA.SR.No. 1434/2026 under Section 47 CPC in EP.No. 31/2023 in OS.No. 220/2000, wherein they objected to executability of a decree for mandatory injunction on the ground that the decree holder had not approached within three years. The decree had attained finality, having been confirmed in S.A. No.446 of 2006 with the Special Leave to Appeal (c) No. 14290 of 2019 dismissed; the identical grounds had already been raised and negatived before the trial and appellate courts, and the decree holder had already obtained the executing Court's allowance of an application for removal of the construction and superstructure. Holding that the executing Court rightly rejected the repeat application, the Court dismissed the revision as devoid of merits, closed the connected miscellaneous petition and declined costs.

¶1

CRP No. 3111 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRP No. 3111 of 2026 and CMP.No.13479 of 2026

¶7

Rajammal W/o.Manickam, Pukkampatty Village and Post, Mettur Tk, Salem Dist.

¶8

2. Alamelu

¶9

W/o. Muthu, Res. at Near Raja Theatre, Mecheri, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶10

3. Venkatachalam

¶11

S/o. Late Alagappan, Res. at Pukkampatty, Pukkampatty Village and Post, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶12

4. Thangaraj

¶13

S/o. Maickam, Res. at Pukkampatty Village and Post, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

Petitioner(s)

1. Parvathi

W/o. Chinnappu @ Chinnapayan, Res. at Pukkampatty Village and Post, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. Muthammal (Died)

¶18

2.Rajappa

¶19

S/o. Late Alagappan, Res. at , Pukkampatty Village and Post, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶20

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

¶21

CRP No. 3111 of 2026

¶22

3.Madhammal

¶23

W/o. Rasappan, Res. at , Bukkampatty Village and Post, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶24

4.The President Pukkampatti Panchayath, Pukkampatti Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶25

5.The District Collector Salem, Salem District.

¶26

6.The Tahsildar, Mettur, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶27

Respondent(s)

¶28

PRAYER

¶29

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, prays to set aside the Docket order dated 30.4.2026 made in EA.SR.No. 1434/2026 in EP.No. 31/2023 in OS.No. 220/2000, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Mettur, Salem District.

¶30

For Petitioner(s): MR.C.Parthiban

¶31

For Respondent(s):

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petitioner herein filed an application, EA.SR.No. 1434/2026 in EP.No. 31/2023 in OS.No. 220/2000, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Mettur, Salem District, under Section 47 CPC. The same was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that a delivery order had already been passed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

¶34

On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the decree passed in O.S.

¶35

No.220 of 2000 has already attained finality. The same was confirmed in S.A.

¶36

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

¶37

CRP No. 3111 of 2026

¶38

No.446 of 2006. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No. 14290 of 2019 was also dismissed, thereby confirming the findings of the Courts below. Consequently, the decree holder filed an Execution Petition for execution of the decree.

¶39

At this stage, the revision petitioners/defendants 2 and 4 to 6 filed an application under Section 47 CPC before the executing Court, raising objections regarding the executability of the decree by contending that the decree for mandatory injunction was barred by limitation as the decree holder had not approached the Court within three years. However, all these grounds had already been raised before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and were negatived. Thereafter, the second appeal was also dismissed confirming the findings of the Courts below.

¶40

The petitioners have once again raised the very same objections by filing the application under Section 47 CPC. Therefore, the executing Court has rightly rejected the application and the same requires no interference. It is also seen that the decree holder had already filed an application seeking removal of the construction and superstructure, and the same was allowed by the executing Court.

¶41

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

¶42

CRP No. 3111 of 2026

¶43