Madras High Court
T.Stella vs Sounder Rajam on 21 February, 2025
C.R.P(MD)No.1981 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 29.01.2025
Pronounced on : 21.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P(MD)No.1981 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)No.11232 of 2024
T.Roselet (Died)
T.Stella ... Petitioner / 1st Petitioner /
3rd defendant
Vs
1.Sounder Rajam
2.J.Rajasree ... Respondents 1 & 2 / Respondents 1 & 2/
Petitioners / Plaintiffs
3.T.Mary
4.T.Violet Baby
5.T.Mercibai
6.T.Thanga Jones ... Respondents 3 to 6 / Petitioners 1,3,4 &5 /
Respondents 1,3,4 &5 / Defendants 1,2,4 &5
PRAYER : This Civil Revision petition is filed under Section 115 of
Civil Procedure Code to call for the records to the fair and decreetal
order passed in E.P.No.36 of 2022 in O.S.No.187 of 2011 connected
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:49 am )
C.R.P(MD)No.1981 of 2024
with O.S.No.93 of 2011 dated 14.06.2024 on the file of the learned
District Munsif, Eraniel and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Srinivasaragavan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.P.Senthil
ORDER
This Civil Revision petition is filed to call for the records to the
fair and decreetal order passed in E.P.No.36 of 2022 in O.S.No.187 of
2011 connected with O.S.No.93 of 2011 dated 14.06.2024 on the file of
the learned District Munsif, Eraniel and set aside the same.
2. The suit in O.S.No.93 of 2011 and O.S.No.187/11 were tried
jointly by the learned District Munsif, Eraniel. The suit in O.S.No.93 of
2011 was filed by the deceased Roselet and O.S.No.187 of 2011 by
Sounder Rajan, Raja Sree against the deceased Roselet. By judgment
and decree dated 26.03.2021, the suit A schedule property was declared
to be the absolute property of Sounder Rajan. B schedule was declared
to be the property of the second plaintiff / Raja sree. The defendant was
directed to deliver the vacant possession to the second plaintiff namely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:49 am )
Raja sree within two months. The decree was put in execution in E.P.No.
36 of 2021, wherein delivery of possession was sought. The revision
petitioner entered appearance and filed her counter. But the execution
Court without noticing the filing of counter by the revision petitioner,
ordered delivery, as if no counter was filed by the revision petitioner.
Against that this Civil Revision Petition is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. At the time of hearing, the very same argument was advanced by
the revision petitioner stating that the execution Court did not notice the
filing of the counter and its availability on the file. The order itself is per
se illegal. According to the petitioner, the matter may be remitted back
to the execution Court because of the mistake committed by the
execution Court, for deciding the issue afresh.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit
that even if the counter is taken into account by this Court, it can be find
that absolutely no valid ground is available.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:49 am )
5. On that account, the revision petitioner was directed to advance
arguments. The revision petitioner would submit that if the matter is
remanded back one more opportunity may be available to her to
challenge the decree.
6. But I am unable to agree with this line of argument. Now we
will go to the counter filed by the revision petitioner to see whether any
valid objection is raised by them. In the counter affidavit it has been
stated that she is having no other property except the petition mentioned
property; She is aged about 63 years; No decree was passed against her
for recovery of possession.
7. But learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that in
the decreetal portion as mentioned above, the decree clearly shows that
delivery was ordered. So the contentions mentioned in the counter is
devoid of merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:49 am )
8. Even otherwise, when we see the record of proceedings, it
appears that delivery was ordered by the execution Court. At the time of
effecting the delivery, this revision petitioner locked the door and
prevented the Amin from taking delivery. This conduct itself shows that
she wants to drag on the matter endlessly. So I find that there is no
reason to interfere with the order of the execution Court, though for
different reasons.
9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
21-02-2025
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
pnn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:49 am )
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
pnn
To
1.The District Munsif, Eraniel.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
and
21.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:49 am )
