A tenant cannot deny the landlord's title during tenancy, per Section 116 of the Evidence Act, affecting execution proceedings.

O R D E R

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 17.11.2025 passed in E.A.No.7299 of 2010 in E.P.No.280 of 2010 in O.S.No.871 of 2004 by the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. By that order, the petition filed by the judgment-debtor under Section 47 CPC to dismiss the execution petition as “not executable” was dismissed.

2. The respondent is the temple Devasthanam, now represented by its Executive Officer. The petitioner is the judgment-debtor.

3. The petitioner’s main contentions are these: the land is “inam” land; as per G.O.Ms.No.1818 dated 09.05.1956 the temple could lease it only for 20 years and the period ended long ago; after the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition) Act, 1963 the land became ryotwari and pattas should go to the occupants and not to the temple; and he claims possession through one C.H. John, with a superstructure, and relies on rent/lease materials. On this basis, it is contended that the temple has no continuing right to evict him.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the decree is nullity because the civil court had no jurisdiction; that such an objection can be raised even at the execution stage; that the land is ryotwari; that the temple has no title and therefore cannot execute the decree; and that his Section 47 application ought to have been allowed.

5. The O.S.No.871 of 2004 was a suit for arrears of rent and delivery of possession after termination of tenancy. The petitioner states that the trial Court dismissed the suit, but the first appeal A.S.No.459 of 2008 was allowed on 30.06.2009 and the second appeal S.A.No.1244 of 2009 was dismissed on 04.01.2010. Thereafter, E.P.No.280 of 2010 was filed for delivery. These facts show that the dispute proceeded on the footing of a landlord–tenant relationship and that the petitioner’s entry and possession were traced to tenancy.

6. In E.A.No.7299 of 2010 under Section 47 CPC, the petitioner again claimed that the decree cannot be executed. He alleged that the temple is not the owner; that the decree was obtained by suppression/fraud; that inam/ryotwari issues show the temple has no right; and that the trustee had no authority. He therefore claimed the decree is a nullity.

7. The respondent opposed the abovesaid application stating that the same issues were already raised and rejected up to second appeal; that the tenant cannot deny the landlord’s title; and that the executing court cannot go behind the decree.

8. The executing Court held that the decree has become final and the objections are not new. It also relied on earlier judgments and tenancy materials to hold that the petitioner is estopped from disputing the decree-holder’s right. It held that Section 47 CPC has a limited scope and the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The application was dismissed.

9. The revisional power under Section 115 CPC is limited. Interference is possible only if the subordinate Court acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or committed material irregularity. A revision is not a further appeal on facts or on the merits of the decree.

10. In this case, the petitioner’s attack on the decree also fails for a basic reason that under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872 if a person entered into possession as a tenant, he cannot, while continuing in possession, deny that the landlord had title at the beginning of the tenancy.

11. The Supreme Court, inVashu Deo v. Balkishan , (2002) 2 SCC 50 , has held that the estoppel embodied in Section 116 operates in the following manner: (i) it precludes denial of the landlord’s titl