DHANALAKSHMI Vs. KAVITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order and decreetal order dated 11.02.2008 made in E.A.No.423/2007 in E.A.No.33/2004 in E.A.No.144/2003 in E.P.No.80/1995 in O.S.No.315/1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.

(2.) The revision petitioner would aver among other things that she filed O.S.No.315/1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur, against the defendant/her husband by name, Rajaram praying for past maintenance of Rs.1,500/- and future maintenance of Rs.300/- per month and charge over the property in case of failing to pay the said amount. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.823/1986 praying for an injunction restraining the defendant/Rajaram from alienating or encumbering the suit property. The suit was decreed as prayed for and the charge was also created in the suit schedule property. The petitioner's husband Rajaram filed an appeal in A.S.No.21 of 1980 before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, against the judgment and decree passed in the suit and that appeal was also dismissed for default and ultimately the decree ended in favour of the revision petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in August 1994, the revision petitioner filed E.P.No.80 of 1995 to execute the decree by bringing the suit property for sale, since the petitioner's husband had not paid the decree amount. One Mr.Subburam and Jeyalaxmi who are brother and sister of the petitioner's husband filed E.A.No.99 of 1996 in O.S.No.315 of 1986 under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC claiming themselves to be the partners in the partnership firm by name, M/s.Sri Gomal Industries and sought to raise attachment of the schedule property and the said E.A was dismissed. As there was no purchaser, the revision petitioner herself purchased the property in question in auction sale and the said sale was confirmed by the executing court. On 29.01.2004, in E.A.No.144 of 2003, the executing court delivered possession of the schedule mentioned property to the petitioner and delivery was also recorded.