A decree from a court of competent jurisdiction remains enforceable unless void ab initio, regardless of claims of fraud, particularly concerning land assignments to scheduled castes.

COMMON JUDGMENT

CRP.(NPD) No.721 of 2012

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Execution Court in E.A.No.276 of 2007 in E.P.No.115 of 1999 refusing to declare the decree passed by the trial Court as nullity and unenforceable against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner filed an application in EA.No.276 of 2007 in E.P.No.115 of 1999 before the Execution Court under Section 47 of CPC to declare the decree the decree passed in O.S.No.615 of 1998 as nullity.

3. According to the petitioner, the property which is sought to be executed and taken possession is a land specifically allotted to Depressed Clause. The Decree Holder/respondent being a caste Hindu is not entitled to claim title over the same as it violates the conditions of assignment. As per the conditions of assignment, the lands specifically reserved for scheduled caste cannot be alienated to other community people and the Decree Holder, by fraud and mis- representation, obtained a decree for specific performance suppressing the statutory conditions attached to the assignment and hence unenforceable.

4. It is also her further contention that her father was kidnapped by her own brother and the appeal filed by him before the High Court was withdrawn fraudulently without his consent and knowledge during the period of his medical treatment as an inpatient. Therefore the decree is not executable as it is tainted with fraud. When there is a statutory restraint, any decree passed without consideration of the same is without jurisdiction and therefore the decree passed is not binding on her as the same is nullity.

5. Controverting the statements, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the property originally assigned to one Kittan Madhari and Chinnasamy Madhari. Thereafter the legal heirs of the above assignees sold the same to one M.Karuppaswamy who is the father of the Revision Petitioner on 19.6.1967 by virtue of a registered sale deed. Thereafter, in order to do away the Depressed Clause conditions, the said Karuppaswamy applied to District Collector for granting Ayan patta. The Ayan patta was granted in his favour on 24.10.1978. After a period of 12 years from the date of grant of Ayan patta, the said Karuppasamy sold 1.10 acres to caste Hindus and entered into an agreement with the respondent for sale of the remaining extent of land. Since the said Karuppasamy failed to execute the sale deed, the respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.615 of 1998 before the file of II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore and the same was defended by the petitioner's father by raising the very same point of assignment conditions along with fraudulent representation.

6. The trial Court, after considering all the objections and the legal issues, decreed the suit on 15.2.1998, against which, the said Karuppusamy filed an appeal in A.S.No.155 of 2000 before this Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.11.2004. In the meantime, the respondent Palansiamy filed an execution petition in EP.No.115 of 1999 against the Judgment Debtor herein to execute and register the sale deed in terms of the agreement of sale dated 19.6.1987 failing which, to execute and register the sale deed through Court on behalf of the respondent. In the meanwhile, Government passed orders resuming the land. Against the said order, the first respondent Palanisamy filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.32273 of 2004 before the High Court seeking to call for the records of the Special Commissioner to Government in G.O.Ms.No.281