ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside fair and decreetal order dated 10.04.2014 in E.P.No. 79 of 2013 in O.S.No. 29 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.

1. This civil revision petition has been preferred by the decree holder in O.S.No. 29 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi as against the dismissal order of the execution petition in E.P.No. 79 of 2013 in O.S.No. 29 of 2009 dated 10.04.2014. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are arrayed as in E.P.No. 79 of 2013.

2. The revision petitioner is the decree holder in O.S.No. 29 of 2009, which was filed for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.43,500/- with 9% interest and the same was decreed in favour of the revision petitioner. At the first instance, the revision petitioner filed an execution petition in E.P.No. 37 of 2011 seeking attachment of the house in which the judgment debtor was residing. However, the judgment debtor filed a counter stating that she has no title over the house and she is residing in the said house as a tenant, which belongs to the Ariyakudi Arulmigu Thiruvengamudaiyan Devasthanam and she is given with a part of land for lease and hence the decree holder cannot attach the same. In view of the counter filed by the judgment debtor, the execution petition was not pressed by the decree holder. Thereafter, second execution petition, was filed before the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi in E.P.No. 79 of 2013 wherein the revision petitioner prayed that since the judgment debtor is not the owner of the land, the superstructure built by the judgment debtor shall be attached. The judgment debtor filed counter stating that the description of the property i.e. door number, survey number, street name etc., are not properly stated. Hence, the execution petition is liable to be dismissed. On consideration of the submissions, made by either parties, the trial Court dismissed the execution petition vide order dated 10.04.2014, in which, it was observed that the petitioner sought only to attach the roof of the building and the petitioner failed to prove the ownership of the judgment debtor with respect to the petition scheduled property. Hence, the present civil revision petition came to be filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed execution petition to get the superstructure built by the judgment debtor attached. He further took me into the various grounds of the Revision Petition and sought to set aside the order passed by the execution Court in E.P.No. 79 of 2013.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/judgment debtor submitted that the attachment sought for by the petitioner cannot be effected in the execution proceedings and more over, the second respondent, who is the daughter of the first respondent too passed away and the first respondent is living in a house built in the land belonging to Devasthanam and hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below and therefore, this civil revision petition is liable to dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondent/judgment debtor relied on a judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No. 14428 of 2017 and the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record.

6. It is seen that the petitioner is the decree holder and at the first instance, he filed an execution petition in E.P.No. 37 of 2011 and the same was not pressed by the petitioner, after the filing of counter by the respondent stating that the property belonged to Ariyakudi Arulmigu Thiruvengamudaiyan Devasthanam and she is only a tenant. Thereafter, the decree holder filed another execution pet