VEDANAYAGY Vs. PORKILAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has to be disposed of on a very short ground. THIS appeal of execution proceedings.

(2.) THE respondent obtained a decree in O.S.F.No.5 of 1968 of the file of the Principal Munsif, Pondicherry on 6.11.1976. THE decree is one for declaration of the respondent to the property. THE respondent filed execution proceedings and took possession property on 13.1.1981. THE appellant filed a petition under 0.21, Rules 99 and 101, for ordering redelivery of the property. THE appellant's case is that the property belongs her and she is not bound by the decree as she is not a party thereto. THE appellant contention that the decree is one for mere declaration and it cannot be executed recovery of possession.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the appellate order the appellant has preferred this C.M.S.A. After counsel on both sides I am of the view that it is wholly unnecessary to consider the whether the appellant was a party to the suit O.S.F.No.5 of 1968 and whether the has proved her title to the property or not. It should be mentioned that the cause title in the judgment and decree in O.S.F.No.5 of 1968 do not contain the name of the It mentions Krishnan as the fourth defendant. It is stated that Krishnan is the father appellant. Similarly the judgment in the appeal against the decree in the A.S.No.212 of 1976 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry 30.6.1980 does not also show the appellant as one of the parties thereto.