A decree for possession is not inexecutable for lack of property description if the property is sufficiently identifiable from the pleadings, particularly when the plaintiff had previously claimed title to the entire property in the same suit.

COMMON ORDER

These two civil revision petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 03.01.2026, made in E.A.Nos.1 and 1 of 2025 in E.P.No.868 of 2025 and E.P.No.866 of 2025 respectively, on the file of the X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, rejecting the petitioner’s applications filed under Section 47 of CPC, to declare the decree in OS.No.1462/2011 as inexecutable and consequently to dismiss the Execution Petitions.

2.The parties will be alluded as per their ranking in the suit. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.1462/2011 is the petitioner in the civil revision petitions.

3.The plaintiff filed O.S.No.1462/2011 for declaration of his title to the superstructure along with leasehold right in the land bearing Old Door No.199, New Door No.11, Thiruvotriyur High Road, 2nd Lane, Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 021, to set aside the Sale Deed dated 25.06.2008 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the deceased 2nd defendant and for permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement denying the plaintiff’s right to the suit property. The 2nd defendant on the strength of the Sale Deed dated 02.02.2009, executed by the 1st defendant in his favour, made a counter claim for delivery of vacant possession of the suit property, by the plaintiff to him. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and allowed the counter claim of the 2nd defendant by directing the plaintiff to handover the vacant possession of the suit property to the 2nd defendant. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred two appeals in A.S.Nos.224 and 225 of 2024. The appeals were dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial court. The plaintiff thereafter filed S.A.Nos.248 & 252 of 2026 before this Court and the same were also dismissed by this Court on 02.04.2026. During the pendency of the appeal, before the Appellate Court, the respondents, the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant filed E.P.Nos.866 and 868 of 2025 for delivery of vacant possession of the suit property. The petitioner herein filed E.A.Nos.1 and 1 of 2025 in E.P.Nos.866 & 868 of 2025 under Section 47 of CPC, to declare the decree in the suit OS.No.1462/2011 as in-executable and consequently, to dismiss both the execution petitions. However, the Executing Court dismissed the EAs and therefore, the present CRPs have been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.

3a.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of proper description of the property in the counter claim, the property sought to be recovered was unidentifiable and therefore, the Executing Court ought to have allowed the Section 47 application and dismissed the execution petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 22.09.2022, in SLP [C].No.20718/2021, in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs. Ajay Bhatia , the Judgment of this Court in Marudanavagam Pillai Vs. P.K. Venkataswami Naidu and Others reported in AIR 1968 Madras 433 and the Judgment of Patna High Court in the case of Nagar Khan and Others vs. Gopi Ram Agarwal reported in AIR 176 Patna 2 in support of his above submissions.

4.The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that there was absolutely no ambiguity in the identity of the property, since respondents suit claimed title to the entire property and only a portion of the property sought to be recovered from the plaintiff in the EP proceedings. The learned counsel relying on the finding of the Executing Court that there was no dispute as to the identity of the property and that the description of the property in the counter claim was not warranted, submitted that there were no merits in the Civil Revision Petition.

5.Heard the learned counsels appearing on eith