Aggrieved over the order of dismissal passed by the Master in Application Nos.596 and 597 of 2018 under section 47 of CPC, the following applications have been filed by the applicants:

1. (a) Applicant/1st defendant in C.S.Nos.561 and 562 of 2002 filed the following applications:

A.No.2882 of 2018 in A.No.596 of 2018 in E.P.No.128 of 2005 filed against the order of the Learned Master in A.No.596 of 2018

A.No.2883 of 2018 in A.No.597 of 2018 in E.P.No.127 of 2005 filed against the order of the learned Master in A.No.597 of 2018

1. (b) Applicant/1st plaintiff/Decree holder in C.S.No.561 and 562 of 2002 filed the following applications:

A.No.2251 of 2018 in E.P.No.127 of 2005 filed to direct break open of the locks or gate or remove the bolt put up at No.39 (New No.81) Avathana Pappiah Road, Choolai, Chennai-600112.

A.No.2252 of 2018 in E.P.No.128 of 2005 filed to direct break open of the locks or gate or remove the bolt put up at No.39 (New No.81) Avathana Pappiah Road, Choolai, Chennai-600112.

A.No.2304 of 2018 in E.P.No.127 of 2005 filed to direct the Inspector of Police, G-1 Veperay Police Station, to render all necessary police assistance for implementation of the order of delivery that may be passed in E.P.No.127 of 2005 in C.S.No.562 of 2002.

A.No.2305 of 2018 in E.P.No.128 of 2005 filed to direct the Inspector of Police, G-1 Veperay Police Station, to render all necessary police assistance for implementation of the order of delivery that may be passed in E.P.No.127 of 2005 in C.S.No.561 of 2002.

2. The facts leading to file these applications are as follows:

2.(a) The respondent and the applicant and one another are the brothers. The suits were filed in C.S.No.562 of 2002 and C.S.No.561 of 2002 for the specific performance of the agreement executed by the applicant and his brother in favour of the respondent. In the above proceedings the applicant remained exparte. His another brother consented for decree. Based on the consent and compromise and also taking into the fact that the applicant remained exparte, the suit was decreed for specific performance. By a decree and judgment dated 01.03.2004 this Court granted decree for specific performance and directed the second respondent to execute the sale deed after receiving his share and also directed if the 1st defendant failed to execute and register sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the Sale Deed shall be executed through Court.

2. (b) It is undisputed fact that the applicant herein has filed A.No.1370 and 1506 of 2005 in C.S.No.561 and 562 to set aside the decree. But those applications were dismissed on 15.6.2005 by a Single Judge in A.Nos.1370 and 1506 of 2005 in C.S.No.561 and 562 of 2002 and the appeal preferred before the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.Nos.273 and 274 of 2005 on 22.02.2008 also dismissed, against which Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable Supreme Court has also dismissed the same. In the meanwhile, a sale deed has also been executed by the second defendant in respect of his share. As far as the applicant shares, court has executed the sale in favour of the respondent. Thereafter he filed application for seeking delivery of the possession of the property. In the above application, applicant being one of the judgment debtors filed application under Section 47 of CPC to decide the rights. The learned Master vide his order dated 02.03.2018 dismissed the applications. Aggrieved over the same, the present applications came to be filed.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the suit was decreed for specific performance. There was no order in respect of the delivery of possession. Therefore, the execution court has no right to order the delivery of possession. Hence, Execution Petition filed for delivery of possession is not maintainable. Hence the order dismissing the applications under Section 47 of CPC by the learned Master is not maintainable and liable to be i