The Court emphasized the importance of accurately identifying the property to be delivered as per the final decree and upheld the jurisdiction and executability of the decree.

1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai passed in E.P.No.2324 of 2009 in O.S.No.2395 of 1966 dated 21.06.2010.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.2324 of 2009. The respondents who are the decree holders in O.S.No.2395 of 1966 sought for delivery of possession of the suit property as described in the execution petition as per the final decree passed in O.S.No.2395 of 1966. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff and they are pursuing the decree after the death of the first plaintiff and subsequently, the second plaintiff.The judgment debtor is the legal representative of the deceased judgment debtor namely Pattu Sasthri, who is now in the occupation of the suitproperty. The request of the petitioners/decree holders is, for delivery of possession of schedule mentioned property of an extent of 2000 sq.ft as detailed in Ex.C2, Commissioner's sketch under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC. However, the respondent had raised the objections in the form of counter affidavit that the first plaintiff R.V.Thirunavukarasu died and therefore, his wife T.Lakshmi Ammal, R.T.Gurumoorthy and T.M.Thilagavathy were brought on record as legal representatives of the said Thirunavukarasu. During 2006, the said Lakshmi Ammal passed away and however, her legal representatives were not brought on record within the stipulated period of 90 days. Therefore, nothing survives in the E.P., without amending the cause title, since it is more than three years. The appeal itself would be deemed to have been abated and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to file the E.P.

3. It is also contended that the revision petitioner/respondents is in possession and enjoyment of the property for over 50 years and the petitioners never stepped into the property. Three years ago, the respondent demolished the old building after obtaining sanctioned plan for demolition and re-construction from the Corporation and accordingly, he constructed 3 storeyed building in the suit property. The petitioners who were well aware of the construction kept quiet without taking any action to stop the construction. The petitioners are estopped from claiming over the property since their right in the property has been extinguished. Therefore, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the E.P.

4. The learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai had heard both sides contentions and arguments and had come to the conclusion of allowing the petition and ordered delivery returnable by 14.07.2010.

5. Aggrieved by such an order of the learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the present revision has been launched.

6. Heard Mr.T.Murugesan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.Pushpa Sathyanarayana, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/judgment debtor and Mr.S.Senthilnathan, learned counsel for the petitioners/decree holder.

7. The learned Senior Counsel would submit in his argument that the objections raised by the revision petitioner before the execution Court that the legal heirs of the deceased Lakshmi Ammal were not brought on record and nothing will survive without impleading legal representatives was not considered by the lower Court. He would further submit that the description of schedule mentioned property was not given correctly in the execution petition. However, the lower Court had held that such description of schedule property does not matter and the length and breadth of the suit property are not necessary for delivery of the property, which is patently wrong. The description of the property in the E.P. schedule was not in confirmity with the plaint schedule, however, the Execution Court had ordered for delivery of the property. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the discussion of this Court made in S.A.No.523 of 1973 regarding the property purchased by the respondents' father should