In an application filed u/s 47 of the Code. Execution Court has very limited jurisdiction.

The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2000 rendered in E.A.No.558 of 1995 in E.P.No.3567 of 1992 in O.S.No.1643 of 1986 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge) Kumbakonam thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 24.4.1996 made in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 1990 by the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.

2. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petition having come to be filed before this Court, what comes to be known is that the petitioners herein are the Decree Holders; that the respondents herein, the Judgment Debtors, have filed a petition under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. E.A.No.558 of 1995 seeking for restraining the warrant for delivery of possession of the extent of one half of the suit property and to dismiss the above E.P. with exemplary costs on averments such as that O.S.No.1643 of 1986 has been filed by the petitioners herein seeking for delivery of possession of the entire suit property, the House and Premises in Door No.11, Kolanthai Achari Street, Choolai, Madras – 112; that the above suit was decreed on 20.9.1990 by the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras; that the appeal preferred by the respondents herein in A.S.No.79 of 1991 was dismissed by the V Assistant Judge on 25.3.1992; that against the said decree, they have preferred second appeal and the same is pending for numbering.

3. The further case of the petitioners is that the suit property was settled by a settlement deed dated 17.1.1960 in favour of one Thiru. Jayaram Naidu for his life time, thereafter in favour of his grandsons Dheenadayalu and Gurumurthy for their life time with the right of enjoyment and the property is encumbered with ancestral mortgage debt created by Sanjeevi Naidu; that to clear the debts, Dheenadayalu, executed a mortgage deed by covering the minor son Sanjeevi Kumar and when the said mortgage deed was not discharged, the said Chokkammal brought the property in public auction through M/s. Murray & Co., Madras and thereafter the suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 against one Gurumurthy, the father of the petitioenrs herein in O.S.No.8066 of 1980 was also dismissed, and the second appeal preferred by them in S.A.No.1066 of 1986 was also dismissed on 16.3.1990; that as per the settlement deed, the said Dheenadayalu is entitled to one half of the property along with his minor son and hence the respondents 1 and 2 herein are entitled to one half of the property and E.P. is liable to be dismissed.

4. In the counter affidavit the petitioners herein would submit that the petition under Section 47 is not at all maintainable in law or on facts; that there is no provision to create the funds in the settlement deed and further the respondents purchased the property in public auction conducted by M/s. Murray & Co., is false; that the auction was held by the Court for delivery of possession in O.S.No.8066 of 1980 and hence they would pray for dismissal of the above petition.

5. Based on the above pleadings by the contesting parties, the learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras having conducted an enquiry and in appreciation of the materials placed on record, would ultimately allow the above Execution Application. Aggrieved, the petitioners herein the respondents therein, who are the Decree Holders have come forward to file the above Civil Revision Petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of Civil Revision Petition.

6. The petitioners, who are the respondents before the Court of IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai are the petitioners in E.P.No.3567 of 1992 in the suit in O.S.NO.1643 of 1986. E.P.No.3567 of 1992 has been filed by the revision petitioners herein as Decree holders in the said suit for execution of the decree, the respondents therein who were defendants 1 and 2 and the Judgment Debtors have filed an application in E.A.No.558 of 1995 under Section 47 of CPC, thereby p