LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-900

DHANALAKSHMI Vs. GOWRI AND OTHERS

Decided On February 08, 2018
DHANALAKSHMI Appellant
V/S
GOWRI AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 16.12.2014 made in E.P.No.2017 of 2010 in O.S.No.4177 of 2005 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) The petitioner and the respondents are the judgment debtor and decree holders respectively in O.S.No.4177 of 2005 and respondent and petitioners respectively in E.P.No.2017 of 2010. The respondents filed the said suit against the petitioner for possession of the property situated at North Madras Registration District, Sembium Sub-District, Tondiarpet Taluk, No.31, Kodungaiyur Village, No.102-B, Kamaraj Salai, Village Natham Survey No.104/6. According to the respondents, the petitioner is adjacent land owner. She filed O.S.No.5603 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and obtained an exparte order of interim injunction on 29.10.2004. After obtaining the interim injunction, the petitioner encroached respondents' property, dispossessed respondents and started to put up construction. In the circumstances, the respondents have filed suit for possession. Both the suits, O.S.No.4177 of 2005 filed by the respondents and O.S.No.5603 of 2004 filed by the petitioner were heard together and both the suits were dismissed by the judgment dated 01.02.2008. The petitioner did not file any appeal against the said judgment. The respondents filed A.S.No.577 of 2005 on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, challenging the dismissal of O.S.No.4177 of 2005 filed by them. By the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010, the said appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2008 made in O.S.No.4177 of 2005 was set aside and the suit was decreed. The respondents filed E.P.No.2017 of 2010 for possession of the suit property as per the decree granted in their favour.

(3.) The petitioner filed counter in the said E.P and raised various objections, mainly contending that property belongs to the petitioner and respondents have not identified property and sought possession of the property in Door No.102, Kamaraj Salai, Kodungaiyur Village, whereas filed E.P for possession of the property in No.102-B, Kamaraj Salai, Kodungaiyur Village.