Order.- The first defendant/judgmentdebtor in O.S. No. 356 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharapuram, is the petitioner in this revision petition. The first respondent herein is the decree-holder/plaintiff in the suit. Certain facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff obtained a decree declaring his right over the suit vacant site and for possession of the same. Both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court made it clear that the decree for declaration and possession is referable only to the vacant site and not to the superstructure, which is said to be in the nature of a bunk shop and is said to have been put up by the first defendant even prior to the institution of the suit. No relief is said to have been claimed by the first defendant in respect of this superstructure. The plaintiff levied execution of the decree in E.P. No. 155 of 1977. The first defendant filed E.A. No. 243 of 1977 praying for an order that the plaintiff is not entitled to possession of the superstructure mentioned in the decree. Obviously this is an attempt to stultify the execution of the decree for possession. The contention urged by the first defendant in the first Court as well as in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document