UMA Vs. SALEM SOWDAMBIGA FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of the dismissal of an application filed under Order XXI, Rules 58 and 99 CPC, by the Executing Court and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) HEARD Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. The respondents 2 to 7 and 9 have been served with notice, but they have not entered appearance. Service on 8th respondent is not completed, but I consider it unnecessary, in view of the fact that the fight is only between the petitioner herein and the first respondent.

(3.) THEREFORE the first respondent herein (who is the decree holder) filed an Execution Petition in REP No.256 of 2005 for executing the decree by the sale of the property described in the schedule to the Execution Petition. In the Execution Petition, the petitioner herein, who is none other than the wife of the third defendant (4th respondent herein) filed an application under Order XXI, Rules 58 and 99 CPC in REA No.340 of 2006, claiming that the property sought to be sold in execution of the decree, was bequeathed to her by her father-in-law M.R.Lakshmanan, by a Will dated 11.6.1996 and that after the death of M.R.Lakshmanan on 13.9.1996, she became the absolute owner of the property and that therefore the decree passed against respondents 2 to 9 herein, cannot be executed against her property.