V SHANMUGHA MUDALIAR Vs. SANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is an illustration for the oft-quoted saying that a litigant's difficulties when he has obtained a decree. The petitioner filed O.S.No.923 of 1962 on the file Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for a declaration of his title and recovery possession. The suit was decreed on 3.3.1964. An appeal was filed by the fifth defendant that suit in A.S.No.311 of 1964 in this Court and it was dismissed on 293.1971. Petitioner filed E.P.No.831 of 1981 for executing the decree. One Jawahar caused obstruction on the ground that he had purchased the property from the judgment-debtor. An was filed by the judgment-debtor herself under Sec.47, C.P.C. for dismissing the execution petition on the ground that the property sought to be taken delivery in execution different from the property for which the suit was decreed. That application was numbered as EANo.6332 of 1981. It was dismissed for default on 12.2.1981. That order was allowed become final. The judgment-debtor died on 27.2.1988. The respondents herein brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased judgment- E.A.No.2755 of 1988.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, the obstruction caused by the third party by name Jawahar directed to be removed and he filed a suit in O.S.No.786 of 1984 on the file of XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for an injunction restraining the petitioner from executing the decree. He filed I.A.No.2002 of 1984 for injunction pending the suit and it was ordered by the trial Court. On appeal by the petitioner, the order of injunction was set aside C.M.A.No.114 of 1984 on 4.21985. The obstructor filed C.R.P.No.988 of 1985 in this against the said order. The obstructor filed E.A.No.5363of l984 for appointment of an cate-Commissioner to identify the property which was sought to be taken delivery. application was allowed by the executing Court. That order was challenged by the petitioner in C.R.P.No.3121 of 1985 in this Court. The obstructor had also filed I.A.No.14188 of 1986 O.S.No.786 of 1984 for the appointment of a Surveyor-Commissioner for a local inspection to identify the property which he was claiming. That application was allowed by the Court. That order was challenged by the petitioner in C.R.P.No.3368 of 1986. Both the C.R.P.Nos.3121 of 1985 and 3368 of 1986 were heard together by Sathiadev, J., and he passed orders on 22.12.1986. He dismissed the revision petitions, but made observations to the effect that the petitioner herein could have asked for a report to be submitted by the Commissioner with the help and aid of either a District Surveyor or through a certified Surveyor. The other revision petition filed by the obstructor viz., C.R.P.No.988 of 1985 arising out of the order in C.M.ANo.114 of 1984 was dismissed on the same day by the same learned Judge.

(3.) IN the execution proceedings after the respondents were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor, they filed an application for permission to file an additional counter. That application numbered as E. A.No.5035 of 1990 was dismissed on 26.11.1990. That order was challenged by the respondents in this Court in C.R.P.No.3289 of 1990 and it was dismissed on 13.12.1990.