(Prayer in CRP.(NPD) No.4109 of 2011: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 20.07.2011 made in IA.No.597 of 2010 in O.S.No.756 of 2006 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore.

CRP.(NPD) No.919 of 2012: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 22.12.2011 passed in E.A.No.970 of 2007 in E.P.No.115 of 1999 in O.S.No.615 of 1998 by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

CRP.(NPD) No.721 of 2012: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 22.12.2011 in E.A.No.276 of 2007 in E.P.No.115 of 1999 passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

WP.No.13232 of 2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from resuming the land of 6.14 acres in Survey Nos.709/2, and 709/3 of Kallapatty Village, Ramasamy Goundenpudur, Coimbatore, allotted to the scheduled caste community and hand over the same and not allot the above land to any other persons other than scheduled caste community.)

CRP.(NPD) No.721 of 2012

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Execution Court in E.A.No.276 of 2007 in E.P.No.115 of 1999 refusing to declare the decree passed by the trial Court as nullity and unenforceable against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner filed an application in EA.No.276 of 2007 in E.P.No.115 of 1999 before the Execution Court under Section 47 of CPC to declare the decree the decree passed in O.S.No.615 of 1998 as nullity.

3. According to the petitioner, the property which is sought to be executed and taken possession is a land specifically allotted to Depressed Clause. The Decree Holder/respondent being a caste Hindu is not entitled to claim title over the same as it violates the conditions of assignment. As per the conditions of assignment, the lands specifically reserved for scheduled caste cannot be alienated to other community people and the Decree Holder, by fraud and mis-representation, obtained a decree for specific performance suppressing the statutory conditions attached to the assignment and hence unenforceable.

4. It is also her further contention that her father was kidnapped by her own brother and the appeal filed by him before the High Court was withdrawn fraudulently without his consent and knowledge during the period of his medical treatment as an inpatient. Therefore the decree is not executable as it is tainted with fraud. When there is a statutory restraint, any decree passed without consideration of the same is without jurisdiction and therefore the decree passed is not binding on her as the same is nullity.

5. Controverting the statements, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the property originally assigned to one Kittan Madhari and Chinnasamy Madhari. Thereafter the legal heirs of the above assignees sold the same to one M. Karuppaswamy who is the father of the Revision Petitioner on 19.6.1967 by virtue of a registered sale deed. Thereafter, in order to do away the Depressed Clause conditions, the said Karuppaswamy applied to District Collector for granting Ayan patta. The Ayan patta was granted in his favour on 24.10.1978. After a period of 12 years from the date of grant of Ayan patta, the said Karuppasamy sold 1.10 acres to caste Hindus and entered into an agreement with the respondent for sale of the remaining extent of land. Since the said Karuppasamy failed to execute the sale deed, the respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.615 of 1998 before the file of II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore and the same was defended by the petitioner’s father by raising the very same point of assignment conditions along with fraudulent representation.

6. The trial Court, after considering all the objections and the legal issues, decreed the