Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Muthappan vs Thankappan
2022 Latest Caselaw 4649 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4649 Mad
Judgement Date : 9 March, 2022

Madras High Court
Muthappan vs Thankappan on 9 March, 2022
                                                                            C.R.P.(MD)No.2204 of 2017



                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED: 09.03.2022

                                                      CORAM:

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

                                             C.R.P.(MD)No.2204 of 2017

                     1.Muthappan
                     2.M.Raju
                     3.Jasmine Sheeba                                        ... Petitioners
                                                      -vs-

                     1.Thankappan

                     2.Thankaraj                                           ... Respondents



                     Prayer :- Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

                     to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.07.2017 in E.A.No.199

                     of 2016 in E.P.No.46 of 2015 in O.S.No.140 of 2013 on the file of the

                     Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari.


                                    For Petitioners     : Mr.S.Ramakrishnan
                                    For R2              : Mr.N.Subramanian
                                    For R1              : No appearance

                     _________
                     Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   C.R.P.(MD)No.2204 of 2017




                                                            ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by

the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari in

E.A.No.199 of 2016 in E.P.No.46 of 2015 in O.S.No.140 of 2013 on the

file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, Kanaykumari.

2.The application in E.A.No.199 of 2016 was filed by the revision

petitioner herein to reissue the delivery list to the Amin to include C and

D schedule properties in the delivery list on the ground that the final

decree was passed allotting plot 'A' measuring 0.750 sq.links of Ex.C.2

plan which is part of the D schedule property, but the Amin has omitted

to exclude C and 'D' schedule property in his delivery list accidently.

Therefore, it is necessary to include C and D schedule property in the

delivery list. Therefore, the petitioner filed the above execution

application. However, the Court below, after hearing both parties, passed

the very detailed order in dismissing the above application and relevant

portions are extracted hereunder:-

4.Heard. Records perused. On perusal of the

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.2204 of 2017

records it is found that the petitioner/decree holder has

filed the suit in O.S.No.140 of 2013 for partition of 1/3 rd

reight in D schedule property and the same was decreed

and final decree was passed allotting Plot A of Ex.C2

plan and on the basis of final decree the

petitioner/decree holder filed execution petition for

delivery of the same and this Court by order dated

03.11.2015 was ordered for delivery of Plot A measuring

0.750 cents of Ex.C2 plan and thereafter the Amin

visited the property and filed delivery list and so this

Court terminated the EP on 04.12.2015 stating tha

“Amin report perused, delivery effected, Amin executed

the warrant as per the decree list submitted hence EP is

terminated” and now the petitioner/decree holder has

sought to reissue the delivery list on the ground that

though the property was delivered as per the decree, the

Amin has omitted to mention the C and D schedule

property in the delivery list that is found in the plaint

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.2204 of 2017

and decree and so sough to include the said C and D

schedule property in the delivery list.

5.For which the respondent strongly objections

that there is no plot like D schedule property on land

and D schedule property is a boundary which is only

pathway available to the judgment debtors only on the

compromise made by the Decree Holder the respondent

has not diligently proceed with the case and so sought to

dismiss the petition.

6.Admittedly, in the plaint there was four schedule

properties as 'A' to 'D' schedule properties. D schedule

property is the area measuring 2.250 cents, in which the

plaintiff has sought for partition of his 1/3rd share and

the same was decreed and plot A measuring 0.750 cents

of Ex.C2 plan was allotted and therefore, execution

petition was filed in which delivery of the plot A of

Ex.C2 plan measuring 0.750 cents was ordered and

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.2204 of 2017

Amin was deputed. Amin after executing the warrant

filed delivery list. Now the petitioner seek to include C

and D schedule property in the delivery list. Amin was

examined as CW1 and he reported that as per decree he

delivered the property. But there is no mentioning about

all the schedule properties that is mentioned in the

plaint and the decree. Admittedly it is not the case of

the petitioner that plot A of Ex.C2 plan was not

delivered and the delivery order was passed by this

Court is very clear that plot A of C2 plan of the schedule

property was ordered to be delivered to the petitioner

and the same was effected by Amin and therefore non

mentioning of the same in the delivery list no way affect

the petitioner. Hence, this Court is not inclined to allow

this application.

3.On a perusal of the order, it is very clear that D schedule

property was about 2.250 cents. The suit was decreed allotting 1/3rd of

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.2204 of 2017

the share in D schedule property in favour of the petitioner herein and

1/3 was marked in the plan as Ex.C2 in favour of the plaintiff to the

extent of 0.750 cents and the same was already handed over to the

petitioner. Therefore, the Court has come to the conclusion that as per

the decree and the order passed by the Court below in the Execution

Petition, the Amin was visited the property and handed over the property

and nothing left to hand over.

4.This Court has also perused the same and does not find any

error in the order of the Court below. Hence, this Court of the view that

order passed by the Court below is correct and the same need not

interfered with. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

No costs.

09.03.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No cp

Note:-

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.2204 of 2017

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate / litigant concerned.

To The Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.2204 of 2017

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

cp

C.R.P.(MD)No.2204 of 2017

Dated: 09.03.2022

_________

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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter