JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the order passed in E.A.No.01 of

2021 in E.P.No.410 of 2020 in O.S.No.137 of 2009 on the file of the learned First Additional District Judge (PCR), Trichy.

2. The petitioners 1 and 2 herein and one Josephine Mary as plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.137 of 2009 seeking the relief of partition of 9/12th shares and for separate possession. That suit was decreed and a preliminary decree for partition of 9/12th shares in favour of the plaintiffs, was passed on 07.09.2012. Against the said Judgment, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S.No.164 of 2014. The appellate Court while confirming 9/12th shares allotted to the plaintiffs, modified the share of the second defendant from 1/12th share to 3/12th share. No second appeal was filed against the Judgment and decree of the first appellate Court in A.S.No.164 of 2014 and the said Judgment and decree became final.

3. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a final decree petition in I.A.No.

465 of 2013. After elaborate enquiry, final decree was passed allotting the shares to the parties on 12.06.2020. The plaintiffs filed E.P.No. 410 of 2010 for delivering the shares. When the Senior Bailiff made attempts to deliver the property as per the final decree, he was obstructed by the respondents 1 and 2. Later, the respondents 1 and 2 filed E.A.No. 1 of 2021 under Order 21 Rule 97 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, claiming that they are the tenants in respect of the property allotted to the shares of the plaintiffs. After enquiry, the learned First Additional District Judge, Trichy, allowed the said petition. Thus, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the tenants are not parties to the suit proceedings. They have not taken any steps for registering themselves as tenants under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. In the said circumstances, they cannot claim to be statutory tenants and they are bound by the decree passed in favour of the appellants. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the order of the learned First Additional District Judge, Trichy and for allowing this appeal. In support of his contention, he produced the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.Gangadhar Vs B.G.Rajalingam, reported in (1995) 5 SCC 238.

5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

6. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the records produced, it is evident that the appellants were allotted 9/12th shares in O.S.No.137 of 2009. In the final decree petition filed in I.A.No.465 of 2013, the properties were earmarked and allotted. When the execution petition is filed in E.P.No.410 of 2020, the respondents 1 and 2 herein obstructed/resisted the execution of the decree on the ground that they are the tenants in respect of the properties allotted to the appellants. It is pertinent to refer the return made by the Senior Bailiff, which reads as follows:-

01.09.2021 k; Njjpapy; fl;lisapy; fz;l fpuhkj;jpw;F nrd;W i\ ];jhtu nrhj;ij kDjhuh;fSf;F RthjPdk; nra;J nfhLf;f Kw;gl;lNghJ i\ vjph;kDjhuh; kw;Wk; Kd;whk; egh;fs; RthjPdk; nra;atplhky; jLj;Jtpl;ldh;. NkYk; kPwp RthjPdk; nra;ag;gl;lhy; jfuhW Vw;gLk; #o;epiy epyTtjhy; jfuhW Vw;glhky; ,Uf;f NghyP]; cjtpf;Fk;> RthjPd fhyj;jpy; jfuhW Vw;glhky; ,Uf;fTk;> NkYk; RthjPd [hgpjh g +l;lg;gl;bUe;jhy; g g+l;il cilj;J RthjPdk; nra;aTk; V.A.O cjtpf;Fk; kDf;fs; jhf;fy; nra;J r%fk; Nfhh;l;by; cj;juT ngw;W RthjPdk; ngw;Wf; nfhs;fpNwd; vd;W kDjhuh;fs; $wpajhy; mJ tpguj;jpw;F mj;jhl;rp vOjp thq;fpAk;> ,Wjpepiy jPh;g;ghiz efy;> mj;jhl;rp rfpjk; fl;lisia hpl;ld;

nra;Js;Nsd;.

7. It is seen that the respondents 1 and 2 have produced Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 documents to show that they are residing in the property allotted to the appellants in the capacity of tenants. In the said circumstances, the petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 came to be allowed. It is further seen