1. Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents.

2. This Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 22.07.2011 made in A.S.No.9 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, confirming the fair and final order, dated 22.02.2011 made in E.A.No.40 of 2011 in E.P.No.307 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.

3. It is seen that the suit in O.S.No.898 of 1983 was filed by Palaniammal, who died subsequently. The said suit was dismissed and the plaintiff in the suit preferred an appeal in A.S.No.70 of 1993. The appeal was allowed in favour of the respondents herein, whereby the decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession was ordered and the petitioners/judgment-debtors were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property, within two months from the date of decree. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners/judgment-debtors preferred Second Appeal in S.A.No.1051 of 2006, that was dismissed, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the first appellate court.

4. It is not in dispute that the Judgment and Decree rendered by the first appellate court reached its finality. Pursuant to the decree, the respondents/decree-holders filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.307 of 2008, in which the petitioners/judgment-debtors filed E.A.No.42 of 2010 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that the decree granted in favour of the respondents/decree-holders is not executable. In the said Execution Application in E.A.No.40 of 2010, P.W.1 and R.W.1 were examined. After considering the oral and documentary evidence and also the submissions made by both sides, Execution Application in E.A.No.40 of 2010 was dismissed by the Executing Court, by its order, dated 22.01.2011. Aggrieved by which, this Civil Revision has been preferred by the petitioners/judgment-debtors.

5. Mr.K.Rajasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/judgment-debtors submitted that the decree obtained by the respondents/decree-holders in O.S.No.898 of 2003 is inexecutable, in view of the fact that the property stated as 30 cents with specific boundaries are not available for execution. The petitioners have further stated in the grounds that as per the evidence of the decree-holder, the mother of the witness had only 10 cents and not 30 cents, as per the decree passed by the Court below in favour of the respondents/decree-holders.

6. Mr.K.Rajasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed, who inspected the property along with the help of the surveyor, measured the property. However, he measured only 10 cents of the land and not the entire 30 cents and therefore, the decree is not executable.

7. Per contra, Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5/decree-holders submitted that the petitioners/judgment-debtors had never disputed the extent of 30 cents and the four boundaries in the suit and in the appeal and therefore, they are not entitled to go beyond the decree. The learned counsel further submitted that according to the revision petitioners, 20 cents were already sold by the respondents/decree-holders and therefore, the Advocate-Commissioner measured only the 10 cents with the help of surveyor and to that effect, Commissioner's Report and sketch were filed and therefore, it cannot be said that the decree is not executable.

8. It was argued on the side of the respondents 2 to 5/decree-holders mainly that the petitioners/judgment-debtors are not entitled to raise a plea, that was already decided by the trial court and the appellate court, which resulted in the decree. Similarly, the petitioners/judgment-debtors are not entitled to raise a new plea that could have been raised before the decree reached its finality. Though the decree passed in favour of t