ESTATE OF VENKATESA SARMA Vs. V SUBRAMANYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to an order of rejection of an execution application seeking to record the full satisfaction of the decree in e. P. No. 2248 of 2001 in O. S. No. 3461/72 and terminate the said E. P.

(2.) PENDING the E. P. , the instant application which was rejected by the said Court, had been filed. The legal representatives of the second petitioner Kausalya, are the petitioners 3 to 5 herein. The petitioners 3 to 5 will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioners.

(3.) IN answer to the above, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that it was V. Subramaniam, who was the only executor and who can continue the execution proceedings; that E. P. was also pending before the Court; that delivery has been ordered; that the Rajasthani jain Samaj Educational Trust actually was an obstructor; that an application to remove the obstruction was also filed; that while the matter stood thus, the rajasthani Jain Samaj Educational Trust filed a suit for injunction; that though the injunction was granted originally, it was subsequently vacated; and that it was also taken up in O. S. A. , wherein it was also confirmed. Added further the learned Counsel that Rajasthani Jain Samaj Educational Trust tried to set up its title by entering into an agreement with the judgment debtor; that when they were unsuccessful, they managed to obtain the sale deed from the grandchildren of the said Venkatesa Sharma to set up a claim to the plaintiff; that their appeal has also been dismissed; that under the circumstances, now, this is an indirect method invented by the said Educational Trust by setting up the petitioners to file the application to see as if the possession was delivered, and pursuant to the delivery of possession to the petitioners, a sale deed has also come into force, and thus, they are in possession of the property; that under the circumstances, the lower Court was perfectly correct in dismissing the I. A. , since the possession of the property was not taken pursuant to the delivery ordered by the Court, and there was no proper delivery as contemplated in law, and hence, the revision has got to be dismissed.