The executing court can allow objections to the executability of the decree if it is found that the same is void ab initio and a nullity. The executing court cannot go behind the decree except when the decree is a nullity or is without jurisdiction.

(Revision Petition filed against the order dated 14.3.2006, passed in E.A. In unnumbered S.R.No.11423/2005 in E.P.No.108/2005, in O.S.No.175/1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court Alandur.)

The judgment-debtor in the E.P.No.108/2005 in O.S.No.175/1988, on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Alandur, is the Revision Petitioner before this Court. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.175/1988 before the Sub-Court, Poonamallee for a declaration that the 'B' schedule property mentioned in the schedule is his absolute property and for directing the 1st defendant/Revision Petitioner to put the the decree holder/respondent in vacant possession of the suit property. By judgment and decree dated 31.10.1995, the trial court decreed the suit for title and dismissed the same for possession. The respondent/plaintiff herein alone filed an appeal in A.S.No.383/1996 before this Court and a Division Bench of this court by its elaborate judgment dated 29.3.2005 allowed the appeal and granted the decree for possession also. Against the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2005, the Revision Petitioner filed Special Leave Petition. But the same was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.5.2005. The respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.108/2005 to execute the decree and after receiving the notice in the execution proceedings, the Revision Petitioner filed an Execution Application under Sec.47 and with a prayer to declare that the decree dated 31.10.1995 is null and void and not executable against him. The execution court by order dated 14.3.2006 in unnumbered SR No.11423/2005 in E.P.No.108/2005 rejected the same and challenging the order dated 14.3.2006, the above Revision Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the documents filed in support of their submissions.

3. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that the execution court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction to decide the issue in accordance with Sec.47 of C.P.C., read with Rule 143 of the Civil Rules of Practice. He further submitted that the Revision Petitioner had no occasion to bring it to the notice of the court during the hearing of the suit and appeal about the fraud played by the decree holder against the courts and other authorities which came to light when he took steps to obey and to give effect to the decree in the suit.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the executing court has rightly rejected the Sec.47 application as the executing court cannot go behind the decree and reopen the matter afresh.

5. It is the case of the Revision Petitioner that he pursued the suit and appeal bonafidely without realising that the respondent herein played premeditated fraud by making and fabricating successive documents and obtained orders suppressing the public records with the calculated intention to cheat the real owner and legally interested persons. Therefore, according to him, the decree in O.S.No.175/1988 is a nullity and unenforceable. It is the revision petitioner's further case that the decree is not executable against the petitioner in view of the inherent defect in the title of the property and also description of the property mentioned in the schedule in the decree. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment reported in (2001) 6 SCC 534 (Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University) to contend that objection under Sec.47 about the executability of the decree can be allowed if it is found that the decree is a nullity.

6. In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with the power of the executing court under Sec.47 of C.P.C., and held as follows:-

"23. Under Section 47 of the Code, all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed or their representatives relating to the execution, disch