LAWS(MAD)-2000-2-46

NALLALAGU POLYTECHNIC MANAGING COMMITTEE KAMARAJ EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION TRUST MADRAS Vs. D SIVAKUMAR

Decided On February 23, 2000
SRI NALLALAGU POLYTECHNIC MANAGING COMMITTEE, KAMARAJ EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION TRUST, MADRAS REP. BY ITS SECRETARY Appellant
V/S
D. SIVAKUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 18.8.1994 made in E.A.No.999 of 1989 in E.P.No.2 of 1989 by the Court of District Munsif, Ponneri thereby dismissing an application filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) THE petitioner Trust has filed the petition before the lower Court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contending that it purchased an extent of 7.72 acres of land in various survey numbers at Thandalkalani Village and established therein Sri Nallalagu Polytechnic Institution; that subsequent to the execution of Kamaraj Education and Research Foundation Trust Deed, the administration of the Polytechnic came to be vested in the present Trust Board and the petitioners carry on the administration of the said Polytechnic as on today and that the properties including the sale deeds stand in the name of the Board of Management of Polytechnic.

(3.) REGARDING jurisdiction, the respondent would contend that the Court of District Munsif, Ponneri, has got jurisdiction since the suit properties situate within the territorial jurisdiction of that court, and hence the Sub Court, Poonamallee rightly transferred the matter to that Court for execution; that for the purpose of delivery of immovable property, pecuniary jurisdiction is not a bar nor relevant; that the petitioner is not still sure whether he is direct party to the proceedings or the representative of the judgment-debtor, so by filing two different applications under different provisions of law, without alleging the specific stands, the petitioner is attempting to confuse the issues; that the respondent has taken possession of the properties through the Court under a valid decree passed in the suit; that no injustice is caused to the petitioner by the delivery effected in his favour; that the petitioner cannot agitate the correctness of the execution proceedings at this belated stage; that there is absolutely no merit in the petition and would pray for dismissing the same.