Madras High Court
Anil Saruba @ Anita Patel vs Kalarani ... 1St on 20 February, 2025
C.R.P.(MD)No.2115 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.2115 of 2024
and C.M.P.(MD).No.12069 of 2024
1.Anil Saruba @ Anita Patel
2.V.Adlin Vijaya ... Petitioners/Petitioners/3rd Party
Vs.
1.Kalarani ... 1st Respondent/1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.Kirijakumari ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent/Respondent
(Cause Title amended as per the order of this Court dated 22.11.2024
made in C.M.P.(MD).No.15145 of 2024)
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the
Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order in E.A.No.2 of 2024 in
E.P.No.8 of 2023, dated 28.06.2024 on the file of the Principal District
Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai for allowing these petitioners as the necessary
parties in E.P.No.8 of 2023 as prayed for.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Punitha Devakumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan for R1
No Appearance for R2
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 06:15:50 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)No.2115 of 2024
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed to set aside the order in
E.A.No.2 of 2024 in E.P.No.8 of 2023, dated 28.06.2024 on the file of
the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai for allowing these
petitioners as the necessary parties in E.P.No.8 of 2023 as prayed for.
2.The facts in brief:
The property under dispute belongs to the second respondent in
the main petition namely Kirijakumari by way of settlement. She sold the
property to one John Stalin. Later John Stalin sold the property to
Kalarani on 02.02.2011. Kalarani leased out the property to Kirijakumari.
She defaulted in payment of rent amount. So petition was filed for
eviction in H.R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2012. It was allowed. Against which
R.C.A.No.2 of 2021 filed before the appellate Authority. That was also
came to be dismissed. Against which C.R.P.No.853 of 2013 was filed.
That also came to be dismissed. The petitioners are the children of the
second respondent. Now these petitioners filed E.A.No.2 of 2024 in
E.P.No.8 of 2023 stating that the property is their ancestral property, in
which, their father is entitled for 1/3rd share. The remaining 2/3rd share
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 06:15:50 pm )
belongs to them. So the settlement deed executed by their father in
favour of the second respondent and subsequent sale effected by second
respondent are not valid under law. So they filed the petition under Order
21 Rule 97 CPC to record their objection and prayed dismissal of
execution petition.
3.The first respondent filed a counter contesting the claim made by
the revision petitioner stating that only to drag on the proceedings this
petition is filed at the instance of the second respondent namely the
mother.
4.After hearing both sides the execution Court by the order dated
28.06.2024 dismissed the petition, against which, this revision is
preferred.
5.Now the revision petitioner says that the property, which is
demised, originally belongs to them ancestrally. Their father have only
1/3rd share. The remaining 2/3rd share belongs to them. But the father
executed a settlement deed in favour of the second respondent, who is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 06:15:50 pm )
the mother of this petitioners for the entire property which is not valid
under law. Now, the second respondent alleged to have sold the property
to one John Stalin and later, the property was sold to the first respondent.
So all these deeds are not valid under law. Under the guise of taking
delivery by executing the order passed in H.R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2012, the
first respondent tries to take possession of the entire property. Since they
have 2/3rd share in the property, the E.P is not maintainable. This is the
sum and substance of the revision petitioner's case.
6.To show that the property is the ancestral property, no document
was produced by the revision petitioner before the Execution Court.
Even in the settlement executed by their father in favour of the second
respondent there is no indication that the property is ancestral property.
When that is being so, the petition was filed before the Execution Court,
wherein, it has been stated by her that she and her sister, second
petitioner herein performed their marriage on their own and because of
that there was no contact between their parents and them. At one point of
time, they came to know that mother was sick and at that time they came
to the house and enquired her mother. Mother alleged to have told that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 06:15:50 pm )
the first respondent herein with the connivance of her husband
fraudulently created documents, based upon which, they filed the case
and now tries to evict her from the property. So only at that time, they
came to know about the case particulars and other facts.
7.It is contended that as seen above, it is seen that it is nothing but
an objection filed at the instance of the second respondent herein to stall
the further EP proceedings. Only bald allegations have been made
without any substance. So the execution court has rightly dismissed the
petition, which requires no interference.
8.The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the
petition is not maintainable. In view of the Judgment of this Court made
in the case of A.R.Sankaran Vs. T.Mohammed Arif Akthar and others
reported in 2012 0 Supreme (Mad) 3007 and the Judgment of this Court
made in the case of Ramesh Vs. Santhadevi reported in 2024 Supreme
(Online)(MAD) 30432, the revision petitioner must establish
independent title over the property and they cannot claim title through
the second respondent herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 06:15:50 pm )
9.But, I am not going to deal about the merits of the claim made by
the revision petitioners, since absolutely, no evidence was let in either
orally or documentary. So there is no occasion to decide the merit of the
claim made by the revision petitioners. The revision petitioners are at
liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for appropriate relief.
10.With the above said liberty, this civil revision petition stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
20.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TM
To
1.The Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.
2.The Section Officer,
E.R.Section/V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 06:15:50 pm )
G.ILANGOVAN,J.
TM
20.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 06:15:50 pm )
