NATESAN Vs. SHANMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners 1 to 6 are the legal representatives of the deceased defendant who has projected this civil revision petition before this Court as against the order dated 31. 8. 2009 in E. A. No. 463 of 2008 in E. P. No. 18 of 2006 in O. S. No. 1496 of 2006 passed by the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) THE Executing Court, while passing orders in E. A. No. 463 of 2008 on 31. 8. 2009 has inter alia observed that ". . . . . but the question whether the revision petitioners/judgment Debtors have any right over the suit property and whether they can continue their possession over it. It is seen that these petitioners/judgment debtors do not have any right over the land which is in their possession their earlier suit for specific performance has been dismissed. It is also not their case that they had been put in possession of the property pursuant to the sale agreement. The first respondent/decree holder had purchased the property within the four boundaries specified in the suit. His vendor has not raised any objection on the ground that there was a larger extent of land available than what had actually been sold to the first respondent/decree holder, a person who is actually aggrieved but he has not chosen to raise a dispute. Hence it would not be open for the petitioners/judgment Debtors who are total strangers to the property and who have trespassed into the property, to raise all these points and seek protection of their illegal possession. There is no merits in the claim of the petitioners/judgment Debtors" and resultantly dismissed the application with costs.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the impugned order of the Executing Court in E. A. No. 463 of 2008 dated 31. 8. 2009 is against law and weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and as a matter of fact, the Executing Court has not appreciated the facts set out in the affidavit in Execution Application to declare the decree null and void in a proper and prospective manner and in fact the Executing Court has travelling beyond the decree and Judgment in the main suit and indeed the respondents/decree holders are only entitled to recover a small portion and they cannot claim larger portion of the land situated within those boundaries and that apart, the respondents/decree holders have claimed the suit property only on the basis of Ex A1 sale deed dated 6. 8. 1979 and the Executing Court has not taken note of the observations of this Court made in paragraphs 10,11 and 13 of S. A. No. 338 of 2006 and the Executing Court has committed an error in ordering delivery of 27 cents which is beyond the decree and also observations of the Executing Court in considering the points held in paragraph 10 of A. S. No. 35 of 2005 which have been over ruled by this Court in S. A. No. 338 of 2006 are not in correct in law and therefore prays for allowing the revision petition in the interest of justice.