Third parties in a partition suit can resist the execution of the decree by filing suitable applications under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 47 of CPC.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.01.2022 passed in I.A.No.97 of 2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2005 in O.S.No.19 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.01.2022 passed in I.A.No.32 of 2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2005 in O.S.No.19 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.01.2022 passed in I.A.No.98 of 2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2005 in O.S.No.19 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam.)

Common Order:

1. The petitioners herein are third parties to a partition suit between the respondents herein in O.S.No.19 of 1996 before the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam.

2. The issues involved in all these Civil Revision Petitions are inter-linked and hence, they are disposed of by this common order.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned fair and decretal orders dated 20.01.2022 in the following Interlocutory Applications.

4. These Interlocutory Applications filed by the petitioners have been dismissed by three separate orders, all dated 20.01.2022. These Interlocutory Applications were filed for the following reliefs:

5. A preliminary decree was passed by the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam, in O.S.No.19 of 1996 on 08.07.2003. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree passed by the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam on 08.07.2003, A.S.No.336 of 2004 was filed by one of the aggrieved party. The parties to the suit in O.S.No.19 of 1996 entered into a compromise. A compromise decree was passed on 21.01.2014.

6. Based on the compromise decree, I.A.No.2 of 2005 was filed for passing of a final decree before the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam, in O.S.No.19 of 1996. A final decree has also been since passed in O.S.No.19 of 1996 on 07.02.2022 after the impugned orders dated 20.01.2022 were passed.

7. The petitioners, who are third parties to the above proceedings, filed I.A.No.97 of 2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2005, I.A.No.32 of 2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2005 and I.A.No.98 of 2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2005 in O.S.No. 19 of 1996.

8. The case of the petitioners before this Court is that the suit for partition in O.S.No.19 of 1996 was based on the alleged sale deed dated 25.01.1958 executed in favour of one Ameena Beevi for an extent of 10 Acres and 19 Cents of land in S.No.165/1 (New R.S.No.165/1A).

9. It is submitted that although the parties to the suit and the appeal suit have a rights over of the land measuring an extent of only 10 Acres and 19 cents in S.No.165/1 (New R.S.No.165/1A), they have filed a suit to partition a larger extent of land measuring an extent of 11 Acres and 12 Cents [4.50 Ares together with 980 coconut trees etc.,] by including the adjacent land of the respective petitioners. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to be impleaded in I.A.No.2 of 2005 filed by the respondents for passing final decree in O.S.No.19 of 1996.

10. It is submitted that under these applications filed to implead the petitioners in I.A.No.2 of 2005, which was filed under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C., was wrongly di