The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the rule of res judicata to prevent parties from relitigating the same question, and the prohibition of obstruction by subsequent purchasers under the law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.12.2013 made in A.S.No.4 of 2011, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.2009 made in E.A.No.80 of 1995 in E.P.No.116 of 1994 in O.S.No.293 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Pondicherry.)

1. The present Second Appeal is a painful pointer of how a litigant starts facing misery after obtaining a decree from the Court. This Court is reminded of the words of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.S.S. Narayana Sarma v. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd., reported in 2002 1 SCC 662 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “indeed his difficulties in real and practical sense arise after getting the decree”. The Code of Civil Procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends. Unfortunately, in many cases, the procedure acts like a penal enactment where the litigant is actually punished and made to run from pillar to post to get the fruits of the decree. This Court is forced to start this judgment with this somber note since a mortgage decree that was obtained in the year 1979 in O.S.No.499/1978, is yet to see the light of the day and 43 years has gone by. If a litigant is made to undergo this mental agony, no wonder people will lose faith in civil litigations and will resort to short cut methods to achieve even those reliefs to which they are rightfully entitled to. As the facts of this case unfurls, one will understand how difficult it is to get a decree executed with the available procedural law in force.

2. The 9th respondent in the petition filed by the respondents 1 to 10 to remove the obstruction, is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

3. This case has a chequered history and the same is briefly stated hereunder:

One Sivabakkayam was the owner of the subject property which is a house property. She executed a donation deed dated 08.07.1965 and thereby she gave the life interest in favour of her daughter Kuppammal and the vested remainder was given absolutely in favour of her grandsons Ramachandran @ Krishnaraj and Kaliaperumal @ Raja. The said Ramachandran took a loan from Visalam Chit Funds Company and his wife stood as a surety for the said loan. Ramachandran mortgaged the entire suit property in favour of Visalam Chit Funds Company. Since the loan amount was not repaid, a suit was filed by Visalam Chit Funds Company in O.S. No. 499 of 1978 for recovery of money against Ramachandran and his wife. The said suit was decreed. Since the amount was not repaid even after the decree was passed, Visalam Chit Funds filed E.P. No. 590 of 1979 to bring the mortgaged property for sale and to recover the decree amount. The property was brought for auction sale.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the said Kuppammal filed EP.No.1117 of 1980 in E.P.No. 590 of 1979 under Order 21 Rule 58 r/w Section 47 of C.P.C., to release the property from the mortgage and to set aside the sale. This petition came to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability through an order dated 05.02.1981 and Exhibits P2 and P3 have been marked to substantiate the same.

5. Aggrieved by the above order, Kuppammal filed A.S.No.50 of 1981 and this Appeal was also dismissed through Judgment and Decree dated 12.03.1981. The same is substantiated through Exhibits P6 and P7. The Appellate Court reiterated the findings of the Execution Court.

6. Thereafter, Kuppammal and Kaliaperumal filed E.A.No.1209 of 1981 against Visalam Chit Funds Company and the legal representatives of Ramachandran, under Section 47 of C.P.C., to declare that Kuppammal has a life interest over the property and Kaliaperumal is entitled for his share as the absolute vested remainder. This petition was also dismissed on the ground of maintainability through order dated 03.12.1981. This is substantiated though Exhibits P4 and P5.

7. The subject property was sold in Court auction in favour of one Vedachalam an