C.R.P(MD)No.866 and 867 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 29.03.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

C.R.P(MD)No.866 and 867 of 2023

and

C.M.P(MD) No.3939 and 3941 of 2023

C.R.P(MD)No.866 of 2023

Kuthalingam

...Petitioner/Respondent/

Defendant

Vs.

Meenakshi Sundaram

... Respondent/Petitioner/

Plaintiff

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of

Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in

E.P.No.18 of 2017 in O.S.No.86 of 2009, dated 16.02.2023 by the

learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi.

For Petitioner

: Mr.S.Mahesh Babu

C.R.P(MD)No.867 of 202

Kuthalingam

...Petitioner/Respondent/

Defendant

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD)No.866 and 867 of 2023

Vs.

Meenakshi Sundaram

... Respondent/Petitioner/

Plaintiff

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of

Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in

E.P.No.19 of 2017 in O.S.No.84 of 2009, dated 16.02.2023 by the

learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi.

For Petitioner

: Mr.S.Mahesh Babu

For Respondent

: No Appearance

COMMON

ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi in E.P.Nos.18

and 19 of 2017 in O.S.Nos.86 and 84 of 2009, respectively. By the

impugned order, the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,

Cheranmahadevi held as under:

"In E.P.No.18 of 2017 in O.S.No.86/2009

1. The Decree Holder/plaintiff has filed this EP to

enforce a money decree of Rs.25,760/- along with accrued

interest as per the decree in O.S.86/2009 by attaching and

sale of the EP schedule property of the Judgment debtor.

2. The respondent/Judgment Debtor filed a formal

counter and contends that the property jointly belongs to JD

and his wife by name Indira. Since the property stands in

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD)No.866 and 867 of 2023

joint owership the same cannot be attached and sold as to

realize the decreetal amoun. Thus, prayed for dismissal of

the E.P.

Now the point to be determination is:

Whether this EP is to be allowed or not?

3. The bone of contention of the Judgement Debtor is

that the property morefully described in the EP petition, he

has only an undivided half interest and, therefore, it cannot

be attached and sold in execution. However, the perusal of

the EP petition would reveals that the Decree Holder also

prayed to attach only an undivided share and sale the same

so as to realize the decreetal amount.

4. After considering the rival submissions, this court

is of the thoughtful opinion that there is no bar in attaching

the undivided share of the respondent/Judgment Debtor,

and there is also no bar to selling an undivided interest in

the immovable property. It is because of the settled law that

the purchaser of undivded share in immovable property can

very well file a partition suit and get his share determined

by metes and bounds. Ergo, this court is inclined to allow

this EP

Hence attach by., Batta in 3 days.

In E.P.No.19 of 2017 in O.S.No.84/2009

1. The Decree Holder/plaintiff has filed this EP to

enforce a money decree of Rs.92,256/- along with accrued

interest as per the decree in O.S.84/2009 by attaching and

sale of the EP schedule property of the Judgment debtor.

2. The respondent/Judgment Debtor filed a formal

counter and contends that the property jointly belongs to JD

and his wife by name Indira. Since the property stands in

joint owership the same cannot be attached and sold as to

realize the decreetal amoun. Thus, prayed for dismissal of

the E.P.

Now the point to be determination is:

Whether this EP is to be allowed or not?

3. The bone of contention of the Judgement Debtor is

tha