Madras High Court
R.Nagalakshmi vs S.Azhagarsamy on 7 February, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
C.R.P.(MD)No.2182 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.2182 of 2024
R.Nagalakshmi ...Petitioner/Claim Petitioner/3rd Party
Vs.
1.S.Azhagarsamy ...Respondent/1st Respondent/Degree Holder
2.A.Ramakrishnan (died) ...2nd Respondent/Tenant/Judgment Debtor
3.R.Dharmabalan
4.R.Ramya ...3rd and 4th Respondents/
Legal heirs of 2nd Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated on 27.06.2024 made
E.A.No.20 of 2018 in E.P.No.29 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.83 of 2009 on the file
of the 1st Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar
for M/s.S.Lenin Prabu
For Respondents : Mr.P.Mahendran for R1
ORDER
The present revision petition has been filed by a third party to R.C.O.P.
No.83 of 2009, challenging the dismissal of the claim petition filed in E.A.No.
20 of 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The first respondent herein as landlord had initiated the rent control
proceedings for evicting the tenant, namely, A.Ramakrishnan. The R.C.O.P.
was allowed on 11.02.2015 ordering eviction. The tenant had filed R.C.A.No.10
of 2015 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court,
Trichirappalli. The appeal was dismissed on 09.12.2016. Thereafter, the tenant
had executed a settlement deed on 25.01.2017, in favour of his wife, settling the
petition mentioned property.
3.The tenant had filed C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.1579 of 2017 before this
Court, challenging the order passed in R.C.A.No.10 of 2015. C.R.P. was
dismissed by this Court confirming the order of eviction on 14.11.2017.
Thereafter, the landlord had filed E.P.No.29 of 2017. Pending execution
proceedings, the tenant had passed away and the wife of the tenant, namely, the
present revision petitioner has filed the claim petitioner in E.A.No.20 of 2018
making a claim over the property.
4.In the claim petition, the revision petitioner has contended that the
petition mentioned property originally belonged to the grandmother of her
husband. After her death, it devolved upon her husband, who had settled the
property in her favour on 25.01.2017. She has also relied upon the revenue
records in her favour to support of the case. The rent controller after considering
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the submissions made on either side has arrived at a finding that the revision
petitioner herein has not filed any documents, whatsoever, to establish the fact
that the grandmother of A.Ramakrishnan, was the owner of the property at any
point of time. The rent controller found that merely, patta or any other revenue
records cannot be relied upon for the purpose of claiming the title over the
property. The rent controller further found that settlement deed has been
executed by A.Ramakrishnan, in favour of the claim petitioner, only after the
dismissal of R.C.A.No.10 of 2015. With the above said findings, the rent
controller had dismissed the claim petition. Challenging the same, the present
revision petition has been filed.
5.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner,
in the revenue records, the name of the grandmother of Mr.A.Ramakrishnan is
found and the property had devolved upon her husband after the death of his
grandmother. Her husband has executed a registered settlement deed in her
favour on 25.01.2017. He also relied upon the counter filed by her husband in
the main R.C.O.P. proceedings, wherein he had claimed independent right over
the petition mentioned property. In such circumstances, he prayed that the claim
petition should have been allowed by the rent controller.
6.Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had
contended that the contention of the husband of the revision petitioner/claim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner was rejected by all the authorities and ultimately, eviction order was
confirmed by the High Court. In such circumstances, the claim petitioner cannot
contend that she has been gifted with the property by her husband, who was
arrayed as the tenant in R.C.O.P. proceedings.
7.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
8.The facts narrated above will clearly indicate that the revision petitioner
has claimed herself to be a third party to the rent control proceedings. In such an
event, the application under Section 47 would not be maintainable. However,
the application filed under Section 47 could very well be treated as an
application under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. Whenever a claim petition is
dismissed under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C, it should be deemed to be a decree
under Order 21 Rule 103 of C.P.C. In such circumstances, only an appeal lies
before the concerned appellate Court and the present revision petition is not
maintainable.
9.The facts captured above further reveals that the revision petitioner
herein was not able to place on record any sale deed or any other registered
documents to establish the tile of the grandmother of her husband. She has only
relied upon certain revenue records which the Court has rightly rejected. In such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
circumstances, this Court finds no merits in the revision petition. Accordingly,
this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
07.02.2025
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
RJR
To
The learned 1st Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli.
Copy to:-
The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
RJR
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.2182 of 2024
07.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
