1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order and decreetal order dated 11.02.2008 made in E.A.No.423/2007 in E.A.No.33/2004 in E.A.No.144/2003 in E.P.No.80/1995 in O.S.No.315/1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.

2. The revision petitioner would aver among other things that she filed O.S.No.315/1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur, against the defendant/her husband by name, Rajaram praying for past maintenance of Rs.1,500/- and future maintenance of Rs.300/- per month and charge over the property in case of failing to pay the said amount. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.823/1986 praying for an injunction restraining the defendant/Rajaram from alienating or encumbering the suit property. The suit was decreed as prayed for and the charge was also created in the suit schedule property. The petitioner's husband Rajaram filed an appeal in A.S.No.21 of 1980 before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, against the judgment and decree passed in the suit and that appeal was also dismissed for default and ultimately the decree ended in favour of the revision petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in August 1994, the revision petitioner filed E.P.No.80 of 1995 to execute the decree by bringing the suit property for sale, since the petitioner's husband had not paid the decree amount. One Mr.Subburam and Jeyalaxmi who are brother and sister of the petitioner's husband filed E.A.No.99 of 1996 in O.S.No.315 of 1986 under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC claiming themselves to be the partners in the partnership firm by name, M/s.Sri Gomal Industries and sought to raise attachment of the schedule property and the said E.A was dismissed. As there was no purchaser, the revision petitioner herself purchased the property in question in auction sale and the said sale was confirmed by the executing court. On 29.01.2004, in E.A.No.144 of 2003, the executing court delivered possession of the schedule mentioned property to the petitioner and delivery was also recorded.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner's husband along with sister and brother said to have started the above partnership firm which was not registered under the Companies Act and mortgaged the scheduled mentioned property in question to the Indian Bank, suppressing the suit filed by his wife, the petitioner herein and interim order of injunction in I.A.No.823 of 1986 in O.S.No.315 of 1986 with mala fide intention to defeat the right of the petitioner. In 1995, the Indian Bank filed O.S.No.444 of 1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,49,363.75/- against the said partnership firm and the same was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai and DRT decreed the suit in favour of the Indian Bank and to execute the decree, the recovery officer brought the property in question for auction. The respondent herein purchased the property in question for a sum of Rs.3,70,000/-. The respondent/purchaser owned a property opposite to the suit schedule property. On 16.01.2003, the Tribunal confirmed the sale and alleged that possession of the suit schedule property delivered to the respondent, but according to the petitioner, the said delivery is only a paper delivery and possession is deemed possession.

5. It is further submitted that since the husband of the revision petitioner failed to pay maintenance, the suit property was attached and interim order was passed not to alienate or encumber the property and it was brought for sale and the petitioner herself purchased the property as there was no purchaser and delivery of possession was also ordered by this Court. At this juncture, the respondent has filed E.A.No.33 of 2003 praying to dismiss E.A.No.144 of 2003 filed by the petitioner by obstructing to take delivery of possession of the property stating that the property in question was already taken possessi