PRAVEENA Vs. P S SUKUMARAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments advanced by Mr.T.Panchatsaram, learned counsel for the revision petitioner are heard. The grounds of revision, copy of the impugned order and the other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

(2.) The present revision is directed against the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri dated 10.07.2013 made in Execution Application REA.No.97 of 2012 in REP.No.300 of 2007 in O.S.No.62 of 2006. Mr.P.S.Sukumaran, son of Sanjeev Chetty filed the above said Original Suit against one T.M.Venkatesan for the relief of specific performance based on an agreement for sale dated 13.06.2005. The said Venkatesan, who was the sole defendant in the suit, did not contest the same and the suit resulted in an ex parte decree dated 11.12.2006 granting the relief of specific performance. Thereafter, the decree holder, namely P.S.Sukumaran, filed an Execution Petition in REP.No.300 of 2007 and got the sale deed executed in his favour by the Court itself on 17.02.2011. Thereafter REA.No.97 of 2012 came to be filed for recovery of possession of the suit property against the legal heirs of the judgment debtor T.M.Venkatesan, who had died in the mean while.

(3.) In the Execution Application REA.No.97 of 2012 filed for getting possession of the property pursuant to the execution of the sale deed in compliance with the decree passed in the above said Original Suit, the legal representatives of the judgment debtor, namely Praveena, Jeeva, Satya and Arunkumaran entered appearance and resisted the Execution Application based on the counter statement filed by the second respondent Jeeva. In the said counter statement, it has been simply contended that the property, regarding which the decree for specific performance had been granted against T.M.Venkatesan was a property belonging to the Hindu Undivided Family and T.M.Venkatesan did not have the power to sell the shares of other members of the family and that hence the above said persons, as legal representatives of the judgment debtor were not obliged to deliver possession of the suit property, in accordance with the decree passed against T.M.Venkatesan. They had also contended that the Execution Application was silent about the age of Arunkumaran.