The revision petitioners had no locus to sustain the petition under Section 47 CPC.

1. The property which is subject matter of the present revision petition originally belonged to one Dharmalingam. On the demise of Dharmalingam, suit for partition was filed by his wife along with her daughters against her six sons and others. Pursuant to the preliminary decree passed on 29.07.1987, declaring 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs, final decree was passed on 31.12.2004.

2. As per the final decree, out of 1 acre and 44 cents of total extent of land and building thereon, 64 cents of land and building thereon portion marked as "D" in the Commissioner plan was allotted to the plaintiffs. 32 cents of land and buildings thereon portion marked as 'B' was allotted to the 4th defendant and the legal representatives of the deceased 7th defendant namely, S. Sugumari W/o Sellathambi who were impleaded as defendants 31 to 33 pending suit. 16 cents of land and buildings thereon portion marked as "C" in the Commissioner plan was allotted to the 5th defendant.

3. In E.P. No. 19/2006 filed by the 4th defendant and defendants 31 to 33 for delivery of possession of the property marked as "B" in the Commissioner plan, the revision petitioners herein claiming themselves as bona-fide purchasers for value pending litigation have filed E.A. No. 36/2008 under Section 47 CPC alleging that the decree in O.S. No. 116/1986 is in-executable decree and obtained by fraud, hence, a void decree.

4. According to the revision petitioners, they had no knowledge about the pendency of the suit when they had purchased the property. They came to know about the suit only on 28.02.2008 when they were threatened to be evicted through the process of court. They are purchasers of the petition mentioned A to C schedule property from one Shanmugam on 23.01.2003. The revision petitioners trace the title of their vendor Shanmugam from the second defendant/D. Ramanathan who according to the revision petitioners sold his separate portion in the property to one Sundara Vadivel, who in turn sold the property to 8th defendant/Rasammal W/o Balasundaram/1st defendant. She in turn sold the property to Shanmugam on 26.12.2001 who is the vendor of the revision petitioners.

5. The Execution Court dismissed the petition holding that the revision petitioners claim title through the 1st defendant and 8th defendant in the suit. The predecessor in title were parties to the suit. The vendors of the revision petitioners were parties in the final decree proceedings I.A. No. 218/2000 since they were in occupation in a portion of the suit property as tenants under the 1st defendant. The 4th petitioner Kannan has deposed that he is residing near the suit property and he had knowledge about the pendency of the partition suit. This part of testimony falsifies the averment in the petition that the revision petitioners came to know about the suit and decree only on 28.02.2008.

6. The Trial Court after scrutiny of the testimony of the 4th revision petitioner who was examined as PW-1 and PW-8 documents marked on behalf of the revision petitioners held that the petition is devoid of merits and filed with unclean hands by suppressing the vital fact, hence dismissed the petition.

7. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the present revision petition is filed. In the revision petition, it is contended that there was only one preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs determining their 1/3rd share each and there is no supplementary preliminary decree in favour of the defendants. While so, the final decree allotting 2/9 share for defendants 4 and 31 to 33, 1/9 share for 5th defendant is erroneous. Further, it is contended that having purchased the property pendente lite and being bona fide purchasers of the property mentioned in the petition schedule which falls under "D" marked portion of Commissioner's plan, allotting the said portion of the land to the 2nd defendant/ Ramanathan will adversely affect the interest of the petitioner.

8. The main contention of the revision petitioners is that their