Madras High Court
V.Shanmugam vs K.A.Shankaran (Died) on 5 August, 2024
C.R.P.(PD)No.2801 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.2801 of 2024
V.Shanmugam .. Petitioner
Vs.
K.A.Shankaran (Died)
1.A.Sundaram
A.Shanmugam (Died)
2.A.Krupakaran
3.Kamatchi Basapan
4.Kuppu Lakshmi
5.S.Senthil Nathan
6.Durgadevi
7.A.Lalitha
A.Prema (Died)
8.Gnanasekar
9.Tharageshwari
Page No 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)No.2801 of 2024
10.Kasthuri
11.Shanti
12.Latha
13.Sathish
14.Padmini .. Respondents
Prayer : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to direct the Principal Sub Court at Krishnagiri to
receive the Draft Sale Deed from the petitioner and to execute the sale deed
and to comply with the procedure as prescribed under Order XXI Rule 34 of
the Code of Civil Procedure in R.E.P.No.156 of 2008 in O.S.No.131 of
1994.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramamurthy
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by an unfortunate
decree holder.
2. He presented a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale
in O.S.No.131 of 1994. The said suit was decreed. Thereafter, in order to
execute the said decree, he filed a petition in R.E.P.No.156 of 2008.
Page No 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. After by the judgment debtors contested, the said execution petition
finally came to be allowed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at
Krishnagiri on 31.10.2023. Despite the direction given to the judgment
debtor Nos.1 to 4 to execute the sale deed for 4/9th share, it seems that the
judgment debtors did not comply with the same.
4. Therefore, the decree holder filed an application seeking direction
to restore the execution petition for the purpose of execution of the sale deed
in his favour through the process of Court. The said application was
returned saying that the execution petition was finally disposed of on
31.10.2023 and hence, it is not maintainable.
5. A decree for specific performance which has attained finality can be
executed through the process of Court. This is by virtue of Order XXI Rule
32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In order to obtain a sale deed,
R.E.P.No.156 of 2008 had been presented by the decree holder. The learned
executing Judge had rightly directed the judgment debtor Nos.1 to 4 to
execute the sale deed. The duty of the executing Court does not stop with
Page No 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
such a direction. In case, the judgment debtors do not execute the sale deed,
the decree holder is always entitled to move the Court again for a direction to
get the sale deed executed through the process of Court. When such an
application was filed, the executing Court has returned it saying that it is not
maintainable.
6. I am surprised to say the least. It is the duty of the Court to ensure
that the decree of the Court is put into execution, and also ensure that the
decree holder obtains the fruits of the decree. A mere direction to the
judgment debtors to execute the sale deed does not suffice. In case, the
judgment debtors do not execute the sale deed, it is the duty of the Court to
receive a draft sale deed from the decree holder and compare, amongst other
things, the schedule of property in the decree along with the schedule of
property in the draft sale deed and execute the sale deed, in favour of the
decree holder.
7. In the light of the above discussion, I am unable to sustain the
return made by the learned Judge stating that the order, dated 31.10.2023,
has become final. The order dated 31.10.2023, directing the judgment
debtors to execute the sale deed is only a step towards the execution of the
Page No 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
decree. This is very clear, because in the order dated 31.10.2023. It is clearly
stated that if the judgment debtors do not hand over the possession of the
property, a separate application can be taken out by the decree holder for the
said purpose.
7. Furthermore, this Court in Selvaraj vs. Koodankulam Nuclear
Power Plant India Limited [(2021) 3 LW 677] had directed the lower
Courts not to return the papers without passing a formal order on the same.
Respectfully following the view taken by Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Seshasayee,
the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed.
8. The learned trial Judge shall receive the application filed in
R.E.A.Diary No.1226 of 2024 and number the same. Thereafter, shall issue
notice to the judgment debtors. In case, the judgment debtors have not
executed the sale deed as per the order dated 31.10.2023, the Court shall
proceed to execute the decree in, the manner as found above.
05.08.2024
mkn2
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Page No 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
Note : Registry is directed to return the original of R.E.A.Diary No.1226 of
2024 to the learned counsel for the petitioner after receiving necessary
endorsement.
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
mkn2
To
The learned Principal Subordinate Judge,
Krishnagiri
Page No 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
05.08.2024
Page No 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
