(1.) O.S.No.288 of 1981 on the file of the III Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, was a suit for partition instituted by A.Suriya Narayanan against his brothers A.Pitchai Chettiar and A.Deivendran Chettiyar and four other persons. The plaintiff wanted declaration and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit property. Preliminary Decree was passed on 26.11.1983. I.A.No.398 of 1984 was filed for passing final decree. In the said final decree proceeding, the Advocate Commissioner filed report and plan dividing the suit property into 'A' schedule, 'B' schedule and 'C' schedule and 'E' schedule. Final decree was passed on 17.02.1989 in I.A.No.398 of 1984 allotting the shares of the plaintiff Suriya Narayanan. A.S.No.1483 of 1988 questioning the Preliminary Decree was dismissed on 25.08.1999.
(2.) The contesting respondent herein, namely, Deivendran Chettiar filed I.A.No.146 of 2000 to furnish stamp papers for engrossing the final decree and the same was allowed on 23.12003. He later filed I.A.No.614 of 2012 for allotting 'B' schedule property and the same allowed on 17.09.201 He filed E.P.No.58 of 2013 seeking physical delivery and realising that he cannot ask for such a relief, did not press the same. Respondents 1 to 4 herein thereafter filed E.P.No.20 of 2016 for symbolic delivery. The executing Court ordered symbolic delivery on 28.07.2017 and the same was effected by affixture on 11.09.2017. This is questioned in this Civil Revision petition at the instance of the fifth defendant in the suit, namely, Pushpammal.
(3.) As already pointed out, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 had claimed 1/3rd share each over the suit property. Pitchai Chettiar had sold 'A' schedule property that was allotted to him in favour of the sons of the Revision petitioner. Likewise, Suriyanarayanan, the original plaintiff had sold 'C' schedule and 'E' schedule properties to the sons of the Revision petitioner. Thus, except 'B' schedule property that was allotted to Deivendran Chettiar, the remaining portions of the suit property have already come to be vested in the family of the Revision petitioner.