High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
M.S. Mansoor Deen & Others
Versus
Fathimuthu Beevi & Others
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1835 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008 & C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.1804 & 1805 of 2008 & M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2008
Decided on: 24-08-2009
Obstruction - Execution Application - Order 21 Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code - 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17
Fact of the Case:
The civil revision petitioners challenged the order of the Executing Court directing the removal of obstructions in E.A.No.766 of 2000, claiming that the properties sought to be delivered were not covered under the decree and that the Executing Court failed to consider material aspects of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the order of the Executing Court did not suffer from any serious infirmity or patent illegality and affirmed the order in E.A.No.766 of 2000.
Issues: The issues revolved around the identification of the properties covered under the decree, the validity of amendments to the execution petition, and the rights of the transferees pendente lite.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the transferees pendente lite from the judgment debtors have no independent right and cannot resist execution. The application for removal of obstruction under Order 21 Rule 97 was deemed valid, and the order of the Executing Court was affirmed.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, and the order passed by the Executing Court in E.A.No.766 of 2000 was affirmed.
COMMON ORDER: 1. The civil revision petitioners have filed the present three civil revision petitions as against the order dated 21.04.2008 in E.A.No.766 of 2000 in E.P.No.156 of 1996 in O.S.No.25 of 1958 passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Mathuranthakam in allowing the execution application in E.A.No.766 of 2000 filed by the decree holder/plaintiff without costs.
2. The Executing Court, while passing orders in E.A.No.766 of 2000 dated 21.04.2008, has come to the conclusion that at a time when the suit is pending the respondents have purchased the property and later has constructed buildings and as such there has been no occasion to file an application to demolish the buildings at the initial stage and as per decree the buildings constructed in the petition properties are ordered to be demolished and since the sale obtained by the respondents are invalid the patta, house tax receipt, electricity receipt are not maintainable and resultantly the buildings are ordered to be demolished and obstructions are ordered to be removed and also the electricity connection has to be disconnected and vacant possession in regard to petition properties item No.14, 18, 21 are to be handed over to the plaintiff/decree holder and the petitioner/decree holder is entitled to obtain the deliver of possession and resultantly allowed the application without costs.
C.R.P.Nos.1804 & 1805/2008:
3.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the order of the Executing Court in directing the removal of obstructions in E.A.No.766 of 2000 is contrary to law and evidence of record and at the Executing Court has failed to take note of the fact that the obstructions are genuine inasmuch as the property sought to be delivered in execution of the decree is not the property covered under the decree and moreover, the settlement proceeding has been concluded in 1960, long prior to passing of the preliminary decree dated 14. 1980 and the final decree dated 33. 1983. But the decree holder/plaintiff has not taken any steps to amend either the plaint or the preliminary decree so as to incorporate the new survey numbers in place of Paimash number described in the suit schedule and also that in the order dated 22. 2007 in C.R.P.Nos.1462 and 1463 of 2006 this Court has left open the question pertaining to the identity of the property sought to be taken delivery and also whether the inclusion of the alleged corresponding survey numbers in execution petition are all issues to be determined in E.A.No.766 of 2000 but these material aspects have not been considered by the Executing Court at the time of passing orders in E.A.No.766 of 2000 and as a matter of fact, the Executing Court ought not to have allowed the amendment of execution petition to include new survey numbers as corresponding to the Paimash numbers mentioned in the decree in the absence of any material on record and in fact, the Executing Court must have noted that item 14 of the decree relates to old S.No.45/2 of an extent of 7.81 acres. But by virtue of an amendment, the S.No.178/1, 0.96 acres, New Survey No.178/2, 0.98 acres, and New Survey No.178/3, 1.08 acres, New Survey No.178/4, 1.14 acres, New Survey No.178/5, 3.02 acres have been added and the disparity in the total extent has been completely lost sight of by the Executing Court and in reality the Executing Court should have taken into consideration that Old Survey No.45 has an extent of 7.81 acres and further that there cannot be any correlation between Old Survey No.45 and newly introduced Survey No.178 and in short, the order passed in E.A.No.766 of 2000 by the Executing Court is in violation of specific directions issued by this Court in C.R.P.Nos.1462 and 1463 of 2006 and added further, in respect of item 21 of the execution petition this Court has found that Old Survey No.69/7, has an extent of 2.68 cents out of which 1 acre is within the specified boundaries has claimed by the plaintiff/decree holder, while the New
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.