[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Palani vs Santhammal on 9 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 17.12.2025 Order pronounced on : 09.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP.Nos.5509, 5513, 5514, 5518,
5519, 5520, 5524 & 5611 of 2025
& CMP.Nos.27705, 27708, 27711, 27713,
27715, 27716, 27720, 27721, 27722,
27727, 27723, 27728, 27741, 27743, 28115 & 28116 of 2025
CRP.No.5509 of 2025:
1.Palani
2.Lakshmi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Santhammal
Nagammal (Died)
2.Sakunthala
3.Ramani
4.Sundari
5.The Government Employees Welfare Association,
Represented by its President and Secretary,
No.2, Vallalar Street,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur Taluk.
6.The Sub-Registrar,
Registration Department,
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:03 pm )
Manavalanagar,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur – 602 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside
the fair and decreetal order dated 25.08.2025 in E.A.No.09 of 2025 in
E.P.No.70 of 2016 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
CRP.No.5513 of 2025:
1.Palani
2.Lakshmi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Sakunthala
2.Santhammal
Nagammal (Died)
3.Ramani
4.Sundari
5.The Government Employees Welfare Association,
Represented by its President and Secretary,
No.2, Vallalar Street,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur Taluk.
6.The Sub-Registrar,
Registration Department,
Manavalanagar,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur – 602 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside
the fair and decreetal order dated 25.08.2025 in E.A.No.04 of 2025 in
2/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:03 pm )
E.P.No.71 of 2016 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
CRP.No.5514 of 2025:
1.Palani
2.Lakshmi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Ramani
2.Santhammal
Nagammal (Died)
3.Sakunthala
4.Sundari
5.The Government Employees Welfare Association,
Represented by its President and Secretary,
No.2, Vallalar Street,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur Taluk.
6.The Sub-Registrar,
Registration Department,
Manavalanagar,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur – 602 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside
the fair and decreetal order dated 25.08.2025 in E.A.No.11 of 2025 in
E.P.No.77 of 2016 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
CRP.No.5518 of 2025:
1.Palani
2.Lakshmi ... Petitioners
3/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:03 pm )
Vs.
1.Ramani
2.Santhammal
Nagammal (Died)
3.Sakunthala
4.Sundari
5.The Government Employees Welfare Association,
Represented by its President and Secretary,
No.2, Vallalar Street,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur Taluk.
6.The Sub-Registrar,
Registration Department,
Manavalanagar,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur – 602 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside
the fair and decreetal order dated 25.08.2025 in E.A.No.05 of 2025 in
E.P.No.76 of 2016 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
CRP.No.5519 of 2025:
1.Palani
2.Lakshmi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Sundari
2.Santhammal
Nagammal (Died)
3.Sakunthala
4.Ramani
4/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:03 pm )
5.The Government Employees Welfare Association,
Represented by its President and Secretary,
No.2, Vallalar Street,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur Taluk.
6.The Sub-Registrar,
Registration Department,
Manavalanagar,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur – 602 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside
the fair and decreetal order dated 25.08.2025 in E.A.No.03 of 2025 in
E.P.No.74 of 2016 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
CRP.No.5520 of 2025:
1.Palani
2.Lakshmi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Sakunthala
2.Santhammal
Nagammal (Died)
3.Ramani
4.Sundari
5.The Government Employees Welfare Association,
Represented by its President and Secretary,
No.2, Vallalar Street,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur Taluk.
6.The Sub-Registrar,
Registration Department,
Manavalanagar,
5/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:03 pm )
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur – 602 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside
the fair and decreetal order dated 25.08.2025 in E.A.No.08 of 2025 in
E.P.No.75 of 2016 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
CRP.No.5524 of 2025:
1.Palani
2.Lakshmi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Santhammal
Nagammal (Died)
2.Sakunthala
3.Ramani
4.Sundari
5.The Government Employees Welfare Association,
Represented by its President and Secretary,
No.2, Vallalar Street,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur Taluk.
6.The Sub-Registrar,
Registration Department,
Manavalanagar,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur – 602 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside
the fair and decreetal order dated 25.08.2025 in E.A.No.03 of 2025 in
E.P.No.73 of 2016 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
6/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:03 pm )
CRP.No.5611 of 2025:
1.Palani
2.Lakshmi ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Sundari
2.Santhammal
Nagammal (Died)
3.Sakunthala
4.Ramani
5.The Government Employees Welfare Association,
Represented by its President and Secretary,
No.2, Vallalar Street,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur Taluk.
6.The Sub-Registrar,
Registration Department,
Manavalanagar,
Thiruvallur,
Thiruvallur – 602 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside
the fair and decreetal order dated 25.08.2025 in E.A.No.11 of 2025 in
E.P.No.72 of 2016 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Ashok Kumar in all CRPs
For Respondents : Mr.M.V.Seshachari for RR1 to 4
Mr.A.Anandan
Government Advocate for RR5 & 6
in all CRPs
7/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:03 pm )
COMMON ORDER
These revision petitions have been filed by the judgement debtors,
challenging the amendment applications filed by the decree holder being
entertained and allowed by the executing Court. In eight execution petitions,
eight separate applications for amendments have been taken out and the
executing Court has proceeded to allow the amendment applications, as
against which, the present revision petitions have been filed.
2.I have heard Mr.K.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the revision
petitioners in all the revision petitions and Mr.M.V. Seshachari, learned
counsel for respondents 1 to 4 in all the revision petitions and
Mr.A.Anandan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 5 and 6
in all the revision petitions.
3.Mr.K.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners
would first and foremost contend that the decree holder has sought to amend
the schedule in the execution petition, without even seeking amendment of
the plaint and the preliminary decree, as also the report of the first Advocate
Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also point out
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:03 pm )
to the inconsistencies with regard to the extent of the property and survey
numbers and state that the discrepancies go to the root of the matter and
without amending the preliminary decree, after amending the plaint, the
respondent was not entitled to straight away seek amendment of the EP
alone.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that
though a preliminary decree was passed in respect of 11 items, the
respondent/ decree holder has given up items 3 to 11 and has restricted the
execution petition only to items 1 and 2. He would also fairly bring to my
notice that the attempt to set aside the preliminary decree by the revision
petitioners was unsuccessful up to this Court, however, he would state that
as against the dismissal of his application under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC,
an appeal is pending in A.S.No.25 of 2023.
5.Pointing out to the averments set out in the affidavit in support of
the amendment applications, Mr.K.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel would
state that absolutely no reasons have been assigned for seeking amendment
and when the title is being seriously disputed by the revision petitioners, the
executing Court ought not to have entertained the amendment applications.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:03 pm )
He would further contend that the amendment applications are also filed
after a lapse of 25 years and considering that the suit was filed even in the
year 1999, the request for amendment is hopelessly barred by limitation. He
would therefore pray for the revisions petitions being allowed, setting aside
the order of the executing Court permitting amendment.
6.Per contra, Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 to 4/decree holders, would firstly contend that the amendment
applications were necessitated, only in order to bring the EP schedule in
conformity to the final decree passed in the matter. It is his further
submission that it is not as if the respondents/decree holders have abandoned
their claim in respect of items 3 to 11 and in this regard, he would submit
that only because of jurisdictional issues, the subject EP was filed limited to
items 1 and 2 and insofar as the remaining items, a separate execution
petition has already been filed and the same is pending before the
jurisdictional Court.
7.Pointing out to the final decree passed in respect of items 1 and 2,
Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel would submit that by inadvertence, the
portions that have been allotted to the parties have been interchanged and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:03 pm )
only for such limited purpose, the amendment applications were taken out
and in view of the amendment arising consequent to the final decree being
passed, he would state that the question of delay or necessity to amend the
plaint or the preliminary decree does not arise.
8.The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 would also contend
that while re-delivering the property in favour of the revision petitioners, the
executing Court had rendered a categorical finding that only because of
improper description of the properties, the execution proceedings were set
aside. He would further bring to my notice that in EA, which was filed by
the revision petitioners for re-delivery, the Court had given a categorical
finding that the execution petition has been filed in respect of mistaken
identity of the respondent's property, without specific boundaries and
measurements and therefore, in the interest of justice, the execution petition
could be maintained, only after necessary amendment to the schedule. After
rendering such a finding, the executing Court directed re-delivery of the
items 1 and 2 to the petitioners. He would therefore contend that only in
view of the said observations and findings of the executing Court, the
amendment applications were even necessitated and he would therefore pray
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:03 pm )
for the revisions being dismissed, as according to the learned counsel, the
executing Court has rightly allowed the amendment applications.
9.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel on either side. I have also gone through the impugned orders, in and
by which, the executing Court has allowed the amendment applications filed
by the decree holders.
10.The executing Court has found that the decree holders will have to
be permitted to furnish correct particulars of the property, in order to enjoy
the fruits of the decree and it is always open to the judgment debtors to raise
their objections by filing an additional counter.
11.The case of the decree holders is that in the final decree
proceedings, the Advocate Commissioner has suggested a particular mode
of division, which has been agreed and accepted by the Court below.
However, the portions that have been earmarked to the respective parties
have inadvertently got interchanged in the execution petitions and only in
order to correct the said inadvertent mistakes, the amendment applications
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:03 pm )
have been filed. In view thereof, I do not see how any delay can be put
against the decree holders.
12.As rightly pointed out by Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel for
the respondents 1 to 4, the purpose of amendment was only to bring the
execution petitions in line with the final decree passed by the Court. At the
same time, it is to be noted that while ordering re-delivery, the executing
Court has rendered certain findings and has held that unless the EP is
amended, the decree cannot be executed. It is pursuant to the said order that
the amendment applications have been taken out. The respondent is satisfied
with the proposed amendments that have been permitted by the executing
Court, despite the order suffered in the re-delivery applications. In such
view of the matter, I do not see any merit in the revision petitions.
13.In fine, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of in the manner
following:
(i) The orders in EA.No.09 of 2025 , EA.No.11 of 2025, EA.No.04 of
2025, EA.No.11 of 2025, EA.No.05 of 2025, EA.No.03 of 2025, EA.No.08
of 2025, and EA.No.03 of 2025 in the respective revision petitions are
confirmed and the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:03 pm )
(ii) However, it shall be open to the petitioners to file an additional
counter and set forth all their objections to the executability of the decree.
(iii)The petitioners shall not be permitted to seek any further
amendment of the execution petition.
(iv)The executing Court shall dispose of the respective execution
petitions on or before 31.03.2026.
(v)There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
09.01.2026
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
ata
To
1.The Subordinate Court, Poonamallee.
2.The Government Employees Welfare Association,
Represented by its President and Secretary,
No.2, Vallalar Street,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur Taluk.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Registration Department,
Manavalanagar,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur – 602 001.
P.B. BALAJI,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:03 pm )
ata
Pre-delivery order made in
CRP.Nos.5509, 5513, 5514, 5518,
5519, 5520, 5524 & 5611 of 2025
& CMP.Nos.27705, 27708, 27711, 27713,
27715, 27716, 27720, 27721, 27722,
27727, 27723, 27728, 27741,
27743, 28115 & 28116 of 2025
09.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:03 pm )
