CHELLAN @ VELAYUDHAM Vs. SASIDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition has been preferred by the second defendant impugning the order passed in E.P.No.58 of 2016 in O.S.No.293 of 1983, dated 25.04.2017, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.

(2.) It is found on the materials placed that the suit in O.S.No.293 of 1983 has been preferred by the first respondent / plaintiff for redemption of the mortgage and possession. The said suit, after contest, has ended in a decree in favour of the first respondent. It is also found that the first appeal as well as the second appeal preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court have ended in dismissal. It is found further that the first respondent has also meanwhile preferred I.A.No.98 of 2013 in the above said suit for passing the final decree in accordance with the preliminary decree passed in the suit. The said final decree application also, after contest, considering the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, was allowed with costs holding that the first respondent is entitled to obtain the delivery of the suit property, measuring 22 Cents, and accordingly, the final decree had been passed in favour of the first respondent. It is found that as against the final decree passed in the suit, no appeal as such had been preferred by the contesting defendants. Therefore, it is seen that the final decree passed in the suit, dated 10.02.2014, has become final.

(3.) Inasmuch as the defendants failed to comply with the final decree and deliver possession of the property to which the first respondent is entitled to as per the final decree passed in the suit, it is seen that the first respondent has levied execution proceedings in E.P.No.58 of 2016 against the defendants under Order XXI Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said execution petition has been resisted by the revision petitioner by contending that his wife had obtained a sale deed for 10 Cents from the original owner Velayudhan Nadar in the suit survey number and under the guise of the decrees passed in the suit it is his case that the first respondent is trying to grab his wife's property by giving a wrongful description of the property and hence, according to him, the execution petition is liable to be dismissed.