The main legal point established in the judgment is that a settlement deed executed with the intention to deprive the decree holder of enjoying the fruits of the decree renders the petition under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code not maintainable.

1. The Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 06.03.2007 in E.A.No.50 of 2004 in E.P.No.25 of 2004 in O.S.No.207 of 1991 passed by the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.

2. The trial Court while passing orders in E.A.No.50 of 2004 in E.P.No.25 of 2004 in O.S.No.207 of 1991 on 06.03.2007 has among other things observed that ...since the Judgment Debtor had cunningly registered the Settlement Deed in favour of her son having full knowledge of the contested Judgment in O.S.No.207 of 1991 and order in E.P.No.142 of 2001, this Court feels that the Settlement Deed is not valid in view of the Sale Deed executed by Judgment Debtor in pursuance to the Decree on 11.06.2001. Further, on perusal of Ex.R1, it is evident that as early as 02.04.1991, notice has been sent under instructions to the petitioner and his Mother viz., the Judgment Debtor to the counsel for the Decree Holder, which shows that the petitioners had full knowledge of the suit. Further, on perusal of Ex.R2, it is the agreement entered into between the deceased Judgment Debtor and the Respondent/Decree Holder wherein the present petitioner had signed as a witness. Hence, it is evident that the petitioner had full knowledge of the transactions between the deceased Judgment Debtor and the Decree Holder and resultantly, dismissed the Application.

3. According to the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Petitioner, the order of the trial Court in dismissing E.A.No.50 of 2004 dated 06.03.2007 is contrary to Law, weight of evidence and all probabilities of the case and in fact, the sole Defendant expired on 12.01.2003 and therefore, all the proceedings after his death was an invalid one and non est in the eye of Law.

4. It is the further contention on the side of the Revision Petitioner that the trial Court had failed to note that the Sale Deed was executed on behalf of a dead person and the subsequent order of delivery is not a valid one since the same was passed against a dead individual.

5. Continuing further, the trial Court wrongly accepted the case of the Respondent/Decree Holder that he was not aware of the death of the deceased sole Defendant and admittedly, the execution of the Sale Deed and the order of delivery took place after the demise of the sole Defendant.

6. The gist of the contention of the Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner is that an Executing Court cannot deliver a wrong and an excess property to a Decree Holder and in fact, Ex.P1 Settlement Deed dated 211. 2002 related to a larger extent than the Execution Petition mentioned property, etc., and in any event, the Executing Court had not applied its judicial mind before passing the impugned order and consequently, prays for Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice.

7. In response, the Learned counsel for the Respondent/Decree Holder supports the order passed by the Executing Court in E.A.No.50 of 2004 dated 06.03.2007 and submits that the Executing Court had rightly came to the conclusion that Ex.P1 Settlement Deed dated 211. 2002 was not a valid one executed by the Mother of the Revision Petitioner and therefore, prays for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice.

8. TheLearned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Petitioner cites the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court PRATIBHA SINGH AND ANOTHER V. SHANTI DEVI PRASAD AND ANOTHER, AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 643, wherein it is held as follows:-

"....Where in a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell immovable property, the map of suit property was not annexed to plaint, and the defendants who did not object to such fact promptly nor the trial Court insisted on such map and the map was filed for the first time in execution proceedings, however, the draft sale deed accompanied by a notice requiring objections to be made by judgment-debtor as provided by sub-rule (2) of R.34 of