The Execution Court exceeded its jurisdiction by nullifying a decree without proper evidence or authority, necessitating a remand for proper adjudication.

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the decree and fair order made in E.P.No.138 of 2019 in R.C.O.P.No.08 of 2016 on the file of District Munsif, Srirangam, dated 27.04.2022.

2. RCOP No.8 of 2016 was filed by the revision petitioner herein against the first respondent before the Rent Controller, Trichy, under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1961, for eviction. That was resisted by the first respondent by filing counter and after enquiry, the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction by order dated 27.02.2019. Against which there was no appeal or further proceedings. To execute the decree, E.P.No.138 of 2019 was filed by the revision petitioner. The respondent entered appearance and after prolonged proceedings, an order was passed by the execution Court ordering delivery by the order dated 20.12.2021, delivery was ordered to be effected on or before 24.01.2022. Later, An application under Section 47 of C.P.C. , was filed. It was returned by the execution Court and re-delivery was ordered to be effected on or before 15.06.2022. Before that the matter was taken on 27.04.2022, by rejecting advance hearing application, the execution Court went on to observe that the property absolutely belongs to Arulmigu Sri Aranganathan Temple, Srirangam, it is the duty of the Court to protect the interest of the temple properties. The Madras High Court in a judgment rendered in W.P.No. 574 of 2015, issued several directions. As per Section 29 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, it is not applicable to the land of the temples. So the Rent Control proceedings itself is not maintainable. Both the parties suppressed the real fact before the Court and obtained decree behind the back of the authorities. No document was produced to prove that the decree holder is the owner of the property. The revenue records produced by the Joint Registrar clearly establish the title of the idol. Since the aggrieved party is the idol, by invoking the inherent powers of the Court, it ordered delivery of vacant possession to the Joint Commissioner Arulmigu Sri Aranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam, through the Court process. The revenue and police officials were directed to render assistance to the Court Amin to execute the order.

3. Simultaneously, it ordered notice to the Joint Commissioner, HR& CE Department. Delivery was ordered to be effected on or before 15.06.2022. Against which this Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the decree holder.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The beneficiary of the order namely the Joint Commissioner Arulmigu Aranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam, was brought on record as a respondent. The revision petitioner would submit that the execution Court cannot go behind the decree RCOP was filed only in respect of the superstructure. Regarding the site, he would submit that it belongs to him.

6. Per contra, the second respondent counsel would submit that the site belongs to the temple which was recognized once. Now it appears that the above said matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and further particulars are not available in this regard.

7. Only a simple point arises for consideration regarding the jurisdiction of the execution Court. The Execution Court went on to make observation that the site belongs to the second respondent. By suppression of the facts, the decree holder and obtained decree with a connivance of the judgment debtor, this allegation is without any evidence. The above said observation was made. If any doubt has arisen in this regard, the execution Court ought to have permitted the parties to take up the legal plea in a legal manner by impleading the second respondent h