Madras High Court
Thangaraj vs S.Maharaja ... 1St on 21 February, 2025
C.R.P(MD)No.759 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 28.01.2025
Pronounced on : 21.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P(MD)No.759 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.3574 of 2023
1.Thangaraj
2.S.Muppidathy ... Revision Petitioners / Respondents 2 and 5
Vs
1.S.Maharaja ... 1st Respondent / Petitioner
2.Balasubramanian
3.Chidambaram
4.Thangammal ... Respondents 2 to 4 / Respondents 1,3 & 4
PRAYER : This Civil Revision petition is filed under Section 115 of
Civil Procedure Code to set aside the fair and decreetal order made in
E.P.No.116 of 2019 in L.S.P.No.368 of 2009 dated 15.02.2022 on the
file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, dated 15.02.2022.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.H.Arumugam for R1
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:51 am )
C.R.P(MD)No.759 of 2023
ORDER
This Civil Revision petition is filed to set aside the fair and
decreetal order made in E.P.No.116 of 2019 in L.S.P.No.368 of 2009
dated 15.02.2022 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli,
dated 15.02.2022.
2. The facts in brief is that the first respondent herein namely
Maharaja filed LSP No.368 of 2009 before the District Legal Service
Authority, Tirunelveli, against the respondent. An award was passed on
18.09.2019, directing the petitioner herein and others to pay a sum of
Rs.6 Lakhs with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 14.08.2009.
On the date of the execution petition, the accrued amount was estimated
at Rs.13,26,025/-. So the award was put on execution by filing E.P.No.
116 of 2019.
3. Execution petition was resisted by this revision petitioner and
others stating that previous E.P.No.150 of 2010 was not pressed by this
petitioner when claim application was filed in E.A.No.156/2011. Later
P.Selvam and others filed O.S.No.202 of 2012 before the I Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:51 am )
District Musif Court, Tirunelveli. It was transferred to District Legal
Service Authority for compromise. A compromise was reached between
the parties. By that compromise, the property was allotted to the mother
of the first respondent namely Balasubramanian. Later the mother of the
first respondent executed a settlement deed in respect of the first item to
him and sold the second item to one Petchiammal and Ramesh. In
respect of the items 3 and 4 also, transfer of title are mentioned in the
counter which need not be elaborated here. In view of the developments,
the order passed LSP.No.368 of 2009 has no legal validity.
4. For which reply counter was filed by the petitioner stating that
all the transfers were made to defeat and delay the execution of the
decree. The execution Court, after hearing both sides, overturned the
objections made by the revision petitioner and others and finally ordered
attachment of the property. Against which this revision is preferred.
5. Heard both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:51 am )
6. We will go to the findings of the execution Court in this regard.
With regard to the adjustment of the decree amount of Rs.5,25,000/-
from Malaiammal, absolutely there is no evidence according to the
execution Court. In fact, no evidence was let in by the parties and no
document was also produced.
7. As rightly contended by the respondent herein, any adjustment
of money after decree, out of the Court, must be certified. For that
purpose, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Lakshmi Narayanan Vs S.S.Pandian reported in 2000 7 SCC
240. So it is mandatory requirement that adjustment out of the Court
after passing the decree must be properly certified. If not certified then it
will have no legal effect.
8. Here absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that the
petitioner has received a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- from Malaiammal towards
the award amount. So this ground is not available to the revision
petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:51 am )
9. The second ground is that after withdrawal of E.P.No.150 of
2010, Perachi Selvi and others filed O.S.No.202 of 2012 that was also
transferred to District Legal Service Authorities and there a compromise
was reached between the parties. Properties have been dealt as detailed
in the counter affidavit. This document was not produced before the
execution Court. But in the typed set of papers it is annexed by the
revision petitioner wherein we find that the suit in O.S.No.202 of 2012 is
the subject matter of the Lok Adalat award, wherein the decree holder is
shown as second defendant / respondent, wherein a joint memo was filed.
In the compromise, the petition mentioned properties was allotted to
Malaiammal. After that a settlement deed dated 22.05.2018, was
executed by her in favour of the revision petitioner S.Thangaraj. Another
sale deed was executed in favour of Petchiammal and Ramesh in respect
of the second schedule. Out of the sale consideration of the above said
transaction, Maharajan was paid Rs.5,25,000/- that is the contention. But
as mentioned above, that contention is devoid of merits. It was rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:51 am )
10. Now no doubt that as per the compromise, the petition
mentioned properties were allotted to Malaiammal. But without
satisfying the decree, it appears that Malaiammal executed settlement
deed in favour of Thangaraj and sold the remaining to the above said
persons. This was pointed out by the execution Court stating that it is
nothing but an attempt on the part of the Malaiammal to delay and defeat
the decree. When payment of decree money derived from sale was not
established by the revision petitioners, then naturally, the property
allotted to Malaiammal must be allowed to be proceeded with.
11. I find absolutely no reason to interfere with the order passed by
the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, made in E.P.No.116 of
2019 in L.S.P.No.368 of 2009 dated 15.02.2022. So this Civil Revision
Petition fails and accordingly, 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 11:01:51 am )
To
1.The Principal District Court, Tirunelveli.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:51 am )
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
pnn
and
21.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 11:01:51 am )
