Kalia Perumal vs Thangapappu
2021 Latest Caselaw 4097 Mad

                                                                        C.R.P.(NPD)No.3886 of 2016

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 17.02.2021

                                                       CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                             C.R.P.(NPD) No.3886 of 2016
                                             and C.M.P.No.19795 of 2016

                     Kalia perumal                                             ... Petitioner

                                                          Vs.
                     1. Thangapappu
                     2. Asupathi
                     3. Kannan
                     4. Radha
                     5. Pitchamuthu
                     6. Devi
                     7. Durga
                     8. Kalidoss
                        (Respondents 2 to 8 are
                        not necessary parties)                                 ... Respondents

                     Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set
                     aside the fair and final order dated 05.10.2016 made in E.P.No.42 of 2015 in
                     O.S.No.170 of 1988 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sirkali.
                                          For Petitioner  : Mr.S.Sounthar
                                          For Respondents
                                                For R1    : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan
                                                For R2    : Given up.



                     Page 1 of 6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                         C.R.P.(NPD)No.3886 of 2016

                                                       ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the fair

and decretal order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the learned District Munsif,

Sirkali in E.P.No.42 of 2015 in O.S.No.170 of 1988, thereby ordering

delivery of possession in respect of share alloted to the first respondent

herein.

2. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the petitioner is the

ninth defendant. The first respondent filed suit for partition and the same

was decreed. As per the decree the first respondent was alloted one of the

1/4 share in the suit property. The preliminary decree was confirmed up to

Second appeal before this Court and thereafter, the first respondent filed

final decree application. By the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2010, the

final order was passed and accordingly, the first respondent is entitled to

have 1/4th share in the entire suit property ad measuring 7200 sq.ft., in the

eastern side towards south to north in the plan annexed, along with six big

coconut trees and one small coconut tree.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.3886 of 2016

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the final decree is not clear with respect to the boundaries and also no

specific measurement. In fact, the petitioner filed detailed counter in the

execution petition stating that the decree cannot be executed since the plan

annexed to the plaint is not clear to divide the property for the share alloted

to the first respondent. Therefore, the decree cannot be executable and the

impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. On perusal of the final decree as well as the plan annexed with

the final decree, the first respondent was alloted 1/4th share in the suit

schedule property. The share of the first respondent is 7200 sq.ft., including

six big coconut trees and one small coconut tree, which is ear-marked in the

plan annexed in the final decree, as eastern side of the ABCD portion

towards north to south. Therefore, it is clearly mentioned about the share of

the first respondent and there is absolutely no difficult for the Court Amena

to execute the decree. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in

the order passed by the Court below.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.3886 of 2016

5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.

17.02.2021

Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order

rts

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.3886 of 2016

To

1. The District Munsif, Sirkali.

2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.3886 of 2016

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

rts

C.R.P.(NPD) No.3886 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.19795 of 2016

17.02.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/