NAGARAJAN Vs. SELVARAJ DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision is directed against the order passed in E.A.No.333 of 1992 in E.P.No.33 of 1991 in O.S.No. 125 of 1984 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore, dated 15.9.1992.

(2.) ONE Kallati Nattar and Mannarsami Nattar filed a suit against one Govindan in O.S.No.88 of 1966 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore for declaration and possession admitting the fact that the said Govindan was in possession of the suit property. The said suit was dismissed on 31.10.1970 after full trial, affirming the title of the said Govindan. The said plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 135 of 1971 on the file of the District Court, Cuddalore which was dismissed on 1.10.1974. They further preferred appeal in S.A.No.301 of 1975, which was also ended in dismissal on 9.9.1977.

(3.) THE court below has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner herein got the relief in O.S.No. 125 of 1984 only by setting aside the decree in O.S.No.88 of 1966, which is not factually correct. THE clauses contained in the decree in O.S.No. 125 of 1984 clearly establish that the setting aside of the decree in O.S.No.88 of 1966 is a separate and an independent clause in the decree, and the other clauses in the decree are not depending on the said clause. THE clause Nos.2, 4 and 5 in the decree in O.S.No. 125 of 1984 are to be executed in the execution proceedings. So, it cannot be heard to say that the entire decree has become nullity or not executable one, in view of the merger of the decree in O.S.No.88 of 1966 with the decree in S.A.No.301 of 1975. Moreover, the suit in O.S.No.88 of 1966 was dismissed and no positive declaration or relief is given in favour of the defendants in the said decree.