Madras High Court
Manohar vs Velayudham on 15 July, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.No.3188 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.07.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.No.3188 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.16977 of 2022
Manohar ... Petitioner
Vs.
Velayudham ... Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the order dated 30.08.2022 passed in E.A.No.67 of 2022 in
E.P.No.53 of 2021 in O.S.No.57 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District
Munsif Court, Cuddalore.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sunilkumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Rajendran
ORDER
Challenging the order dated 30.08.2022 in E.A.No.67 of 2022 in
E.P.No.53 of 2021 in O.S.No.57 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District
Munsif Court, Cuddalore, dismissing the application under Section 47 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 11:17:13 am )
Code of Civil Procedure, the present revision has been filed.
2.The suit in O.S.No.57 of 2005 has been originally filed by the
respondent seeking declaration of title to the B-Schedule property.
According to the plaintiff, he is the owner of the property and an extent of
North-South by 56 feet and East-West by 180 feet out of 66.52 Acres
belongs to him, which is described as A-Schedule property in the suit. It is
the case of the plaintiff that the same has been purchased by his father by
registered sale deed dated 01.03.1941. Since it is a vacant land, it is in his
possession. As he is a absentee landlord, the defendant, who was engaged
as a labourer in the nearby field, was employed as a Watchman. The
defendant encroached an extent of 100 sq.ft., i.e., 10 feet East-West and 10
feet North-South in the A-Schedule property, which is described as B-
Schedule property in the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for declaration
of title in respect of the B-Schedule property and also for recovery of
possession.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 11:17:13 am )
3.In the written statement, a stand has been taken by the defendant
with regard to adverse possession. The trial Court decreed the suit by
judgment and decree dated 31.07.2008. The judgment and decree has
reached finality upto this Court in S.A.No.1666 of 2008. Thereafter,
execution has been levied in E.P.No.53 of 2021, in which, delivery has also
been ordered.
4.At that stage, the present application has been filed by the defendant
under Section 47 CPC. The main ground raised in the application is that the
respondent/decree holder is trying to take possession of a larger extent
which is not covered under the decree. The Execution Court dismissed the
application on the ground that the same has been filed only to protract the
execution proceedings. Challenging the same, the present revision has been
filed.
5.Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit
that, under the pretext of taking delivery of 100 sq.ft., the respondent/decree
holder is trying to recover larger extent. However, when this Court raised
query as to whether he has any objection if the delivery is taken with regard
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 11:17:13 am )
to B-Schedule property alone which is covered under the decree, the learned
counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that, if the respondent takes
possession of 100 sq.ft. alone as per the decree, the petitioner has no
objection. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that they are
proceeding with execution only as per decree.
6.Though the respondent/plaintiff has pleaded as if the entire A-
Schedule property belongs to him, the relief sought is only in respect of the
B-Schedule property. According to the respondent, A-Schedule property is
a vacant site. If the A-Schedule property other than the B-Schedule property
is a vacant site, the possession in respect of the vacant site follows title.
That issue has to be decided later. The crux of the issue in this lis is
confined to declaration of title and delivery of possession with regard to 100
sq.ft., which is shown as B-Schedule property. Such being the position,
when the decree and judgment in the suit has reached finality upto this
Court, the judgment debtor cannot protract the proceedings by merely filing
applications, one after another. Hence, I do not find any merit in this
revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 11:17:13 am )
7.However, it is made clear that, as per the decree, the
respondent/decree holder is entitled to take delivery of only 100 sq.ft.,
described as B-Schedule property in the suit, for which, the revision
petitioner/judgment debtor also has no objection. The submissions of the
learned counsel on either side in this regard, are recorded.
8.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.07.2025
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Principal District Munsif,
Cuddalore.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 11:17:13 am )
mkn
15.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 11:17:13 am )
