SIVAGAMI Vs. S MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the first respondent. The order passed in E. P. No. 44 of 2005 in O. S. No. 62 of 1999 on the file of Sub Court, Tirupur, is under challenge in this revision petition.

(2.) THE revision petitioner would contend that a fraud has been played by the respondents to get a decree in O. S. No. 62 of 1999. But to set aside the decree passed in O. S. No. 62 of 1999, neither the first respondent nor the second respondent had taken any steps by way of appeal. To execute the decree passed in O. S. No. 62 of 1999, the plaintiff/1st respondent herein has filed E. P. No. 44 of 2005 for delivery of possession. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that while an earlier suit in O. S. No. 40 of 1983 filed by one M/s P. S. Shanmuga Vadivu Chit Funds, Avinashi against Ponnusamy ,son of Kondappa Gounder was pending in respect of the suit property for realising a mortgage debt, the said Ponnusamy had executed a sale deed in favour of one Sivagami who is the second defendant in O. S. No. 62 of 1999. O. S. No. 62 of 1999 was filed by T. S. Mohan, who is the auction purchaser of the suit property in E. P. No. 107 of 1985 in O. S. No. 40/1983 on 4. 2. 1987. He has filed E. P. No. 44 of 2005 in O. S. No. 62/1999 for delivery of possession.

(3.) THE contentions of the revision petitioner is that all the legal heirs of Kondappa Gounder were not made party in O. S. No. 40 of 1983 and hence the decree passed in O. S. No. 40 of 1983 itself is not valid. But to set aside the decree passed in O. S. No. 40 of 1983 also there is no steps taken to set aside the same and the decree passed in O. S. No. 40 of 1983 has become final as well as the decree passed in O. S. No. 62 of 1999 has also become final.