Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 14881

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
Pappammal (Deceased), Veeramuthu S/o. Raju Nadar, Lakshmi W/o. Gajendran, Chandranila D/o. Raji, Yakub Ali S/o. Late Azeez, Beer Mohamed S/o. Late Azeez, Sulaiman S/o. Late Azeez, Mastan S/o. Late Azeez, Aisha D/o. Late Azeez – Appellant
Versus
Arumugam S/o. Elumalai Nadar, Madhava Perumal Devasthanam, The Commissioner Alandur Municipality, The Assistant Engineer, MES TNEB Power House, The Assistant Executive Engineer, MES TNEB Power House – Respondent
CRP No. 3735 of 2025 | CRP No.5614 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Murali Krishnan
For the Respondents: T.M.Hariharan, Mr.S.T.Raja, Mr.B.Tamil Nidhi AGP

The finality of decrees and the necessity for precise property identification are crucial in execution petitions.

Headnote:The case highlights the principles underlying execution petitions and the amendment of decrees in civil suits. The petitioners challenged the execution of a decree for recovery of possession, arguing a lack of proper property description. The court emphasized the finality of the decree and permitted necessary amendments. The key legal questions involved the adequacy of property identification and the roles of involved parties for facilitating the execution. Ultimately, both civil revision petitions were dismissed with directions for property identification to ensure a fair process.

Table of Content
1. fact summary and background on the case proceedings (Para 2 , 3)
2. court's observations on the merits of the case and final order (Para 4 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments from petitioners and respondents regarding property ownership and execution (Para 5 , 6)
4. final order and dismissal of petitions (Para 9)

COMMON ORDER

CRP No.3735 of 2025:

Heard Mr.S.Muralikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel for the first respondent.

2. The petitioners are the judgment debtors having suffered a decree before Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur in O.S.No.104 of 1990. The suit was filed by the first respondent for declaration and recovery of possession of “D” and “E” of the suit schedule property.

3. The decree has become final admittedly and execution petition was filed for recovery of possession. In the execution petition, finding that the decree did not contain correct description of Schedule “D” property, an application in I.A.No.824 of 2021 was filed by the 1^st respondent to amend the decree. The said application has been allowed by the trial court, as against which CRP No.3735 of 2025 has been filed.

4. Subsequently, the executing court has proceeded to pass final orders in the execution petition, ordering delivery as against which, CRP No.5614 of 2025 has been filed.

5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the owners of the property which is now attempted to be proceed against and the properties are bearing distinct door numbers. He further states that since the decree has been passed exparte the bailiff cannot identify the property without the assistance of the local Taluk Surveyor.

6. Per contra, Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/decree holder would state that the decree has admittedly become final and the decree did not identify the property in Schedule “D” correctly in line with the plaint schedule and hence the petitioners were constrained to take out I.A.No.824 of 2021 and the trial court has rightly allowed the said application finding that it was a mistake in depicting the “D” schedule as “ south eastern” instead of “ south western”. Pursuant to the same, the decree has also been amended and the executing court has ordered delivery. Having allowed the decree to be final, it is not open to the petitioners today to contend that the first respondent is not entitled to satisfaction of the execution of the decree.

7. The only apprehension of the petitioners is that under the guise of taking possession of the decreetal property in schedule “D” and “E”, the property of the petitioners should not be in any manner proceeded against.

8. In the light of the above, I do not see any merit in the grounds of revisions filed by the petitioners. The apprehension of the petitioners can be sufficiently safeguarded by suitable directions. Therefore, both the civil revisions petitions are dismissed. A direction to the executing court, in the event of delivery not being effected already, to direct the bailiff to be assisted by the local Taluk Surveyor to identify the decreetal property in Schedule “D” and “E” properties and hand over the same to the first respondent/decree holder.

9. The petitioners shall cooperate with the exercise of identification of Schedule “D” and “E” property by the Taluk Surveyor assisted by the bailiff. The entire exercise shall be completed by 31.03.2026.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document