Possession claims under Order XXI require actual dispossession; non-dispossessed individuals may seek relief through Order XXI Rule 97.

ORDER :

The revision is at the instance of a third party, who filed an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC to protect him from being dispossessed in execution of a decree in O.S.No.2559 of 1982 in E.P.No.1251 of 1987.

2.Pending the revision, CMP.No.28643 of 2025 has been filed by the third parties, seeking to clarify the order passed by this Court on 12.08.2025 in CMP.No.19412 of 2025 in the above revision.

3.I have heard Mr.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in CRP.No.3602 of 2025 and 1^st respondent in CMP.No.28643 of 2025, Mr.R.Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 in CRP.No.3602 of 2025 and respondents 2 to 5 in CMP.No.28643 of 2025 and Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.M.Muralidharan, learned counsel for the petitioners in CMP.No.28643 of 2025.

4.The summary of the arguments of Mr.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, are as follows:

a) The property originally belonging to Kumaraswamy Chettiar and Krishnappa Chettiar.

b) They had mortgaged the property in favour of one Sunderlal.

c) After mortgage, Krishnappa Chettiar filed a suit for partition against Kumaraswamy Chettiar in C.S.No.338 of 1951.

d) Under the partition decree, Krishnappa Chettiar was allotted Old Door Nos.53, 54, 55 and 56 and Kumaraswamy Chettiar was allowed Old Door Nos.58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63.

e) Krishnappa Chettiar filed O.S.No.9038 of 1979 for redemption of the mortgage on 23.11.1979.

f) Similarly, the legal heir of Kumaraswamy Chettiar, one Jeyaraman filed suit for redemption in O.S.No.2559 of 1982 on 2.04.1982.

g) Final decree came to be passed in both the suits on 17.03.1986 (O.S.No.9038 of 1979) and 16.01.1996 (O.S.No.2559 of 1982) respectively.

h) The decree holders in O.S.No.2599 of 1982 filed an execution petition in E.P.No.1251 of 1987 and the decree holders in O.S.No.9038 of 1979 filed E.P.No.3536 of 1991.

i) On 19.03.2008, the decree holders in both the execution petitions executed a Memorandum of Understanding with one Shanmugam, authorising Shanmugam to take possession of the properties comprised in R.S.Nos.21 and 22/2 (Items 2 and 3 of the suit property).

j) On 19.03.2008, the decree holders in O.S.No.2599 of 1982 and their counsel authorised the said Shanmgam for taking possession in the execution proceedings.

k) On 22.04.2008, possession was taken with reference to both Survey Nos.21 and 22/2.

l) On 28.04.2008, the said Shanmugam, representing the decree holders, filed a report, stating that possession of Items 2 and 3 had been delivered.

m) On 30.04.2008, the Bailiff filed a report, confirming that Items 2 and 3 were delivered. However, Old Door No.55 New Door No.59 could not be proceeded against, in view of an interim injunction passed by this Court.

n) On 05.05.2008, the authorised representative, Shanmugam entered into an agreement with the revision petitioner for a total sale consideration of Rs.71,40,000/- and an advance of Rs.35,00,000/- had been given.

o) On 16.10.2008, Sampathkumar issued a lawyer's notice to the said Shanmugam, acknowledging the MoU as well as authorization to take possession of Item Nos.2 and 3.

p) On 02.09.2009, the revision petitioner lodged a police complaint in Crime.No.427 of 2009.

q) Pending the enquiry before the Police authorities, the said Shanmugam entered into a fresh agreement of sale on 29.01.2010, with the revision petitioner.

r) On 03.02.2010, in the application moved by the petitioner for anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.2313 of 2010, this Court recorded factum of petitioner being in po