Madras High Court
Sathianathan vs Padmalakshmi on 7 March, 2023
C.R.P.No.2686 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.03.2023
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.R.P. No.2686 of 2019
and CMP.No.17719 of 2019
Parvathiammal (Died)
1.Sathianathan
2.Chandran
3.Velayudam ... Petitioners / Petitioners
Petitioners / Decree Holders
Vs.
Ravanammal (Died)
1.Padmalakshmi
2.Sathyavali Balasubramani
3.Sundaravalli
4.Poongodi
5.Neelavathi ... Respondents / Respondents
Respondents / Judgment Debtor
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the fair order and decretal order dated 30.01.2018
passed in E.A.No.121 of 2017 in E.A.No.61 of 2012 in E.P.SR.No.1274 of
2009 by the District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur and allow the E.A.No.121 of
2017 in E.A.No.61 of 2012 in E.P.SR.No.1274 of 2009 by allowing the
above civil revision petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.R.P.No.2686 of 2019
For Petitioners : Mr.E.Prabu
For Respondents : Mr.K.Prabhakaran [R1]
RR2 to R5 [ No appearance]
ORDER
1.1 The suit in O.S.No.87/1997 was laid for recovery of possession and for
delivery of vacant site after removal of the superstructure put up by the
defendant. The defendant / tenant of the site on his part had filed an
application in I.A.No.354/2001 under Section 9 of City Tenants Protection
Act for purchase of a vacant site. The said application was allowed and the
trial Court has also determined the extent required to be sold to the
defendant and the value to be paid by her. And according to the
defendant/tenant, the amount too has been deposited in the Court.
1.2 Be that as it may, as it was felt that the value of the site so fixed by the
Court appears to be higher, the male heirs of the defendant preferred an
appeal in CMA.No.20/2001 before Sub Court, Ponneri, and that was
dismissed on 28.06.2004. It is to be stated that, by that time, the defendant
had passed away, and was replaced by her legal heirs. Her male heirs are
represented as petitioners 2 to 4, and her female heirs as respondents 3 to 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2686 of 2019
in the said EP, in addition to the plaintiffs, who are arrayed as respondents
1 and 2. Indeed, the legal heirs of the defendant have got themselves
impleaded even before the trial Court.
1.3 It is in this setting, the tenants / defendant had laid EP in 2009. And
that was returned by the Registry of the trial Court for curing certain
defects and the same was not done within the time stipulated by the
Execution Court. Consequently, the appellants/tenants had filed
E.A.No.61/2012 for condonation of delay of 1023 days in representing the
EP. However, in the short cause-title to the application in E.A.No.61/2012,
the petitioners' name is described as 'Parvathiammal and others'
(Parvathiammal is the original defendant). Therefore, they have filed
another application to correct the short cause title and to list the name of
the legal heirs of the defendants. This was dismissed by the trial Court vide
impugned order dated 30.01.2018. Hence, the revision petition.
2. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the respondents herein
informs the Court that in terms of the order passed by the trial Court in the
application under Section 9 of CTP Act, there was a stipulation to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2686 of 2019
defendant to deposit the sale consideration of Rs.3,15,600/- in 36 equal
monthly instalments of Rs.8,766/- per month. This was grossly breached
by the revision petitioner / tenants as they chose their own time line for
depositing the said amount. This would imply, there is a breach not only to
the order of the trial Court, but also the relevant provisions of the CTP Act.
And in view of this violation, the order passed under Section 9 of CTP Act
is inexecutable.
3. Without passing any opinion for the present, this Court considers that the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents is one step
too early. It is the stage where the execution petition itself has not been
taken on record, and it apparently faces multiple hiccups, first due to the
default of the defendant or her legal heirs as the case may be, and then by
the dismissal of an application in E.A.No.121 of 2017 in E.A.No.61/2012.
So far as the present prayer sought in E.A.No.121 of 2017 is concerned, it
is too innocuous, and the trial Court has not adequately considered its
significance and relevance, and has dismissed it. This Court deems it
necessary to allow this application forthwith.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2686 of 2019
4. So far as the contentions taken by the counsel for the respondents is
concerned, he is required to reserve the same till such time when he gets an
opportunity to oppose the execution petition as and when it is taken on
record by the Execution Court. This Court yet again clarifies that no right
of the respondents is foreclosed by the order now passed by this Court in
this revision petition.
5. The revision petition is allowed subject to herein above stated. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.03.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
ds
To:
1.The District Munsif
Thiruvottiyur.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2686 of 2019
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
ds
C.R.P. No.2686 of 2019
07.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
