IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 47 CPC in a possession dispute and the limitations on challenging the validity of a decree in execution proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 04.11.2023 in E.A.No.2 of 2021 in E.P.No.539 of 2018 by the XI Small Causes Court at Chennai.)

1. This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 04.11.2023 in E.A.No.2 of 2021 in E.P.No.539 of 2018 by the XI Small Causes Court at Chennai.

2. The revision petitioner is the petitioner in E.A.No.2 of 2021 in E.P.No.539 of 2018 in RCOP No.1459 of 1988. The revision petitioner, challenging the execution petition in E.P.No.539 of 2018 in R.C.O.P.No.1459 of 1988, filed a petition in E.A.No.2 of 2021 under Section 47 CPC on the ground that he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the premises as a owner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the property and premises consisting ground and first floor bearing Old Door No.27, New Door No.8, situated at Muthu Street, Purasawalkam, Chennai – 600 007 belonged to Narasammal, who is the adopted mother of the petitioner. The 1st respondent /Decree holder had allegedly purchased the property bearing Door No.27, situated at Muthu Street, Purasawakam, Chennai – 600 007 by public auction in mortgage suit. The 1st respondent/decree holder filed a suit in O.S.No.6473 of 1975 against his adopted mother namely Narasammal for recovery of possession only to an extent of 600 sq.feet consisting of two rooms and hall in the ground floor out of the property measuring to an extent of 1994 sq.feet including plinth area of 4440 sq.feet.

4. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the adopted mother of the petitioner had delivered the possession only to an extent of 600 sq.feet pertaining to a portion of the ground floor of the above referred property. So far as the other portion of ground floor and entire first floor of the property bearing Old Door No.27, New Door No.8, situated at Muthu Street, Purasaiwalkam, Chennai – 600 007, she had not delivered the possession to the 1st respondent/decree holder. In respect of the other portion of the ground floor and the entire first floor, the petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment. The 2nd respondent/judgment debtor was occupying two rooms in the ground floor of the above referred property as tenant under his adopted mother namely Narasammal and he was paying the monthly rent to the adopted mother of the petitioner namely Narasammal. Further, the 2nd respondent Krishnaswamy had vacated and handed over the vacant possession of the two rooms on 28.05.1988 to the adopted mother of the petitioner and the adopted mother of the petitioner died on 28.11.1989. Since 28.05.1988 the adopted mother of the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of petition premises, after demise of his adopted mother, the petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the two rooms in the ground floor of the premises. The 1st respondent/decree holder has taken over the possession only to an extent of 600 seq.feet consisting two rooms and hall in the ground floor out of total extent of 1994 sq.feet including plinth area of 4440 Sq.feet. He further submitted that there is no jural relationship between the 2nd respondent/judgment debtor namely Krishnaswamy and 1st respondent/decree holder namely S. Shanmugam. However, the first respondent/decree holder namely S. Shanmugam had filed a RCOP No.1459 of 1988 against the 2nd respondent/judgment debtor before the Court. After an elaborate enquiry, the Court was pleaded to dismiss the said RCOP against which, the 1st respondent/decree holder has preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.252 of 1992 to set aside the dismissal order passed in RCOP No.1459 of 1988. After hearing the matter, the appellate Court dismissed the said R.C.A. The 1st Respondent/Decree Holder has preferred a civil revision petition in C.R.P. (NPD)Nos.947 to 949 of 1997 before the this Court to set aside the decree