VELMURUGAN Vs. HARIDAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed by the decree -holder against the order in EA. No. 1241 of 1985 in E.P. No. 83 of 1985 in O.S. No. 832 of 1982 passed by the District Munsif, Tirukovilur. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition can be briefly stated as follows:

(2.) THE said application was resisted by the revision petitioner herein and his deceased father and in their counter, it is stated that as per the partition between the brothers, the first respondent -first plaintiff got 15 cents on the east while Sivanthabadam and Kadirvel each got 8 cents on the west and middle portion. The alleged purchase from Kadirvel and Sivanthabadam and the alleged construction and enjoyment by Sivalingam Pillai are false and respondents 1 to 3 are put to strict proof of the same. Further, they filed a suit in respect of the B schedule property with reference to the equitable mortgage dated 17.9.1969 for Rs. 2,000 against the heirs of Sivalingam who were enjoying 15 cents and by virtue of the Debt Relief Act, they got redemption as the debt is deemed to have been discharged. They are en -titled to execute the decree and respondents 1 to 3 (petitioners in E.A.) can have no objection to the same. Further, respondents 4 to 11 have no right to execute sale deeds. The petition under Section 47, C.P.C. is not maintainable.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the revision petitioner mainly contended that the very provision of Section 47, C.P.C. does not apply to the case of respondents 1 to 3 and that their remedy is only to file a suit. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that they are the representatives of the judgment -debtor and that with regard to the dispute regarding identity of the property, the petition under Section 47, C.P.C. is maintainable; even otherwise it is maintainable under Section 151, C.P.C. Various decisions were cited on behalf of both parties in support of their contentions.