Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 183 Mad
Judgement Date : 4 January, 2023
CRP.No.716 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.No.716 of 2017 and
CMP.No.3613 of 2017
Ramachandran(died)
1.Pavunambal
2.Karpagam
3.Ramadevi
4.Rohini
5.Kathiravan
6.Komala
(amended as per order in
EA.No.139 of 2016) ... petitioners
Vs.
1.Sivaprakasam
2.Bobby Ammal ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the
fair and decretal order in EA.No.145 of 2006 in EP.No.303 of 2004 in OS.No.720
of 1988 dated 15.11.2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore
and thereby allow the civil revision petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Rajavelavan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.D.Ravichander
For R2 : M/s.P.Veena Suresh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
CRP.No.716 of 2017
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair and
decretal order in EA.No.145 of 2006 in EP.No.303 of 2004 in OS.No.720 of 1988
dated 15.11.2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, thereby
dismissed the application seeking dismissal of the execution petition.
2. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel
for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.
3. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the judgment debtor.
Originally the suit property was owned by one, Angamuthu Ammal. She filed
suit for declaration and recovery of possession in OS.No.720 of 1988 as against
one, Ramachandran. The said suit was decreed by the judgment and decree
dated 10.06.1992. Aggrieved by the same, appeal suit was filed and the same
was also dismissed and the same was confirmed by this Court in SA.No.1068 of
1993 by the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2004. In pursuant to the decree,
an execution petition was filed to execute the decree passed in OS.No.720 of
1988. The said suit was filed by her power of attorney i.e. the first respondent
herein. The power of attorney filed execution petition in EP.No.303 of 2004 in
order to execute the decree of recovery of possession from the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.716 of 2017
Ramachandran / judgment debtor. While pending the execution petition, the
judgment debtor purchased the suit property from the principal i.e. Angamuthu
Ammal by the registered sale deed dated 22.02.2006. After the purchase, the
principal i.e. Angamuthu Ammal issued legal notice on 27.02.2006 against the
first respondent herein, thereby cancelled the power of attorney executed by her
in respect of the suit property. After purchase of the suit property, the judgment
debtor died and the petitioners have been impleaded as respondents in the
execution petition.
4. Once again, the said Angamuthu Ammal executed another sale
deed in favour of the second respondent herein who is none other than the
daughter of the first respondent herein by the sale deed dated 21.02.2006.
However, it was registered only on 08.03.2006. It was executed one day prior to
the sale deed executed in favour of the judgment debtor on 22.02.2006. On the
strength of the sale deed, the second respondent filed petition to implead herself
in the execution petition. It was allowed by the execution court. In the said
scenario, the petitioners filed application to dismiss the execution petition in
EA.No.145 of 2006 on the ground that the power holder cannot maintain
execution petition since the principal herself executed sale deed in favour of the
judgment debtor. Subsequently, the principal had issued notice to the power https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.716 of 2017
holder and thereby cancelled the power of attorney by the legal notice dated
27.02.2006. While pending the EA, the second respondent herein was
impleaded as the second petitioner in the execution petition by herself on the
ground that the subject property was purchased by her from the principal i.e.
Angamuthu Ammal by the registered sale deed dated 21.02.2006. It was
dismissed on the ground that it is unbelievable that the said Angamuthu Ammal
executed sale deed on 22.02.2006 in favour of the judgment debtor by
comparison of thumb impression. Admittedly the petitioners are in possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore, his principal i.e.
Angamuthu Ammal through the power of attorney filed suit for declaration and
recovery of possession in her favour.
5. When the judgment debtor suffered decree of declaration and
recovery of possession, he intended to purchase the suit property and
accordingly, he purchased the suit property from the said Angamuthu Ammal by
the registered sale deed dated 22.02.2006. Now the second respondent has also
purchased by the sale deed dated 21.02.2006. The said Angamuthu Ammal
executed sale deed in her favour on 21.02.2006 and the same was registered
only on 08.03.2006. Now the first respondent herein also died who filed
execution petition on behalf of his principal. The principal i.e. Angamuthu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.716 of 2017
Ammal also died long back on 27.02.2007. Therefore, the power holder cannot
maintain the execution petition since the principal herself died.
6. Now the only point for consideration is that whether the
subsequent purchaser i.e. the second respondent herein can maintain the
execution petition or not. Admittedly, the judgment debtor purchased the
property by the sale deed dated 22.02.2006 executed by the principal i.e.
Angamuthu Ammal and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property. At the same time, the second petitioner also purchased by the
sale deed dated 21.02.2006 which was registered on 08.03.2006 executed by
the same Angamuthu Ammal in respect of the suit schedule property. However,
the second respondent without any possession of the suit property, simply she
purchased and sale deed was executed in her favour while the first respondent
and his principal were alive. Therefore, the second respondent also cannot
maintain the execution petition to execute the decree passed in OS.No.720 of
1988.
7. In view of the above, the fair and decretal order in EA.No.145 of
2006 in EP.No.303 of 2004 in OS.No.720 of 1988 dated 15.11.2016 on the file of
the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore is set aside and this civil revision petition https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.716 of 2017
is allowed. Accordingly, the execution petition in EP.No.303 of 2004 is hereby
dismissed. It is made clear that in respect of the title over the property, the second
respondent is at liberty to agitate the issue separately in the manner known to law, if
so advised. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
04.01.2023 Speaking/non-speaking Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.716 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.716 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To The Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore
CRP.No.716 of 2017
04.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!