VENUGOPAL Vs. MEENAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION challenging the proceedings/order of delivery of possession dated 03. 04. 2009, made in R. E. P. No. 165 of 1981 in O. S. No. 81 of 1964, on the file of the Sub Court, Tirupattur.

(2.) THE petitioners are 16 to 18th judgment-debtors in R. E. P. No. 165 of 1981 in tirupattur Sub Court in O. S. No. 81 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif court, Tirupattur is sought to be executed directing delivery of the suit properties in favour of the decree-holders/1 to 4th respondents. The execution petition was resisted by the Judgment-debtors. The Executing Court, on 26. 08. 2002, passed an order of delivery of properties. These petitioners carried the matter in Revision before this Court in C. R. P. No. 1279 of 2002 and this court, on 22. 01. 2009, dismissed the Civil Revision Petition confirming the order passed by the Executing Court from which these petitioners preferred s. L. P. No. 5513 of 2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition. But the said Special Leave petition, was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, on 03. 04. 2009, the Executing Court ordered delivery of the properties by 03. 06. 2009, by observing that even though it was contended by the judgment-debtors that the decree-holders has no locus standi to continue the Execution Proceedings and the rights were transferred to third parties and subsequently, the delivery was already ordered and stay was vacated. This is the order challenged before this court in this Revision.

(3.) THE mainstay of the petitioners is that the decree-holders have transferred their interest in the properties by means of registered documents by virtue of the deeds dated 25. 04. 2008 and 14. 07. 2008 to J. Thamilmaran and therefore, they have lost their rights to prosecute the execution petition after transfer of rights in respect of the decree and therefore, the order directing the delivery of possession is perverse and that grant of permanent injunction, in O. S. No. 154 of 2001, by the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, restraining the decree-holders from interfering with their possession, is a bar for execution and they have no right to maintain the Execution Petition before the decree is set aside.