A party claiming right through a litigant to a dispute cannot claim a better right than their predecessor in title, and the points already decided and reached finality cannot be re-agitated.

1. This Civil Revision has been preferred against the order and decretal order, dated 11.01.2010 made in E.A. No. 139 of 1962 in E.P. No. 134 of 1957 in O.S. No. 226 of 1946 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore.

2. The Revision Petitioner herein and one Chinnapappu @ Ramasamy Gounder had filed the said Execution Application before the Executing Court under Section 47 r/w 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and by the impugned order, the Execution Application was dismissed by the Court below on merits. Aggrieved by which, the Revision has been preferred by the Petitioner herein.

3. It is an admitted fact that the Revision Petitioner along with the other person had filed the Execution Application, claiming right over the suit property, questioned the Court auction sale and also prayed for dismissal of the Execution Application, by setting aside the Court auction sale, however, the said Application was dismissed by the Court below.

4. T.V. Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Court auction sale relating to the suit property is against law and liable to be cancelled. According to the learned Senior Counsel, there was no attachment over the property, however, the property was brought in a Court auction sale, hence, the Court auction is illegal and liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, M.S. Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 14th Respondent/auction purchaser, submitted that the Execution Application filed by the Petitioner along with another before the Court below itself was not legally maintainable and hence, there is no error in the impugned order. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 14th Respondent, the matter was finally decided by the Apex Court and the points raised by the Petitioner herein in the Execution Application were already decided and reached finality and therefore, filing Execution Application before E.P. Court and the present Revision Petition are to be construed only an abuse of process of Court.

6. As per the impugned order, the Court below has framed the following point for consideration for deciding the Execution Application:

“Whether the Petition under Section 47 filed by the Petitioner to be allowed or not?”

In the finding, the Court below has held that in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Petitioner before the Apex Court, the pint that was decided in the Execution Application, under Section 47, C.P.C. was also considered and the relief sought for by the Petitioner herein was negatived. The Petitioner had filed separate Execution Application, in E.A. No. 255 of 2009 to take up the Petition filed under Section 47, C.P.C., that was dismissed by the Executing Court. Confirming the order of the Court below, the earlier Revision Petition was dismissed by this Court. The Court below, after considering the earlier orders, which reached finality and also the arguments advanced by both the learned Counsel, has held that there is no merits in the Petition, either in law or on facts and accordingly, dismissed the Execution Application.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 5267 – 5269 of 2002, dated 24.10.2008, has categorically held as follows:

“9….This is not a case of usufructuary mortgage. Nor is any interest payable on any loan. Nor is the claim for any rent payable. Therefore, we are not satisfied that Appellants, are persons entitled to the benefits of the Act. In the absence of such satisfaction, the question of setting aside the auction sale under Section 23-A of the Act does not arise. The rejection of the three Applications is proper. As a consequence, the auction sales will have to be confirmed in favour of the auction-purchasers.

10. The Appeals have no merits and are accordingly dismissed.”

8. Subsequently, Applications for clarification was filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court by the Petitioners herein, however, by order, dated 23.02.2009, the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the