LAWS(MAD)-2024-8-52

K. SUBRAMANIAM (DIED) Vs. ARULMIGHU CHOCKKALINGASAMY KOIL DEVASTHANAM

Decided On August 02, 2024
K. Subramaniam (Died) Appellant
V/S
Arulmighu Chockkalingasamy Koil Devasthanam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order, dtd. 6/1/2024 passed in E.A. No.3 of 2023 in E.P. No.2 of 2019 in O.S. No.197 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif of Sivakasi.

(2.) The Respondent/Decree-holder herein had originally filed O.S. No.197 of 1988 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Sattur. The prayer was to declare that the Plaintiff Devasthanam is the Owner of the property and directing the Defendants to quit and deliver possession to the Plaintiff Temple and also for Mesne Profits etc. The Suit was originally dismissed by a Judgment and Decree, dtd. 12/1/1990. As against the same, the Plaintiff filed an Appeal Suit in A.S. No.121 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Court, Srivillputhur. By a Judgment and Decree, dtd. 25/7/1994, the Appeal Suit was allowed and the Suit was decreed as prayed for. The aggrieved Defendants further filed Second Appeal No.1391 of 1994 and by a Judgment, dtd. 27/10/2006, the Second Appeal stood dismissed and the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court was confirmed. In order to execute the same, the present Execution Petition in E.P. No.2 of 2019 is filed. When the Delivery Warrant was issued, the Court Bailiff visited the site and made the following endorsement:

(3.) Mrs. Jessi Jeeva Priya, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners would submit that the Decree-holders have to go only by the Decree and cannot include a new Door Number and execute the Decree. According to her, the properties in new Door Numbers are different properties and in the guise of the executing the earlier Decree, now possession is sought to be taken with reference to the Government Poramboke Land, which is not part of the Decree property. As far as the Government Poramboke Land is concerned, Government being the predominant Title holder had permitted the Defendants to reside. Therefore, that portion of the Land cannot be taken possession by the Decree-holder by trying to make an innocuous amendment of Door Number.