Madras High Court
Ellaiyamman And Dhroupathi Amman Kovil vs V.Manimekalai on 20 August, 2024
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.11791 of 2018
S.A.(MD)No.187 of 2018 :
Ellaiyamman and Dhroupathi Amman Kovil,
Kumbakonam,
Rep. by Trustee,
M.V.Ramamoorthy (Deleted). ... Appellant / Respondent /
Petitioner / Plaintiff
(The name of the trustee is deleted vide order
dated 05.08.2024 in S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411
and 412 of 2018 by GRSJ)
Vs.
1.V.Manimekalai
2.N.Nagavalli
3.R.Suseela ... Respondents 1 to 3 / Petitioners
Obstructors
4.Elizabeth Arockiasamy (Died)
5.Josphin
6.Recklaeniya
7.Poulic Irudaya Mari
8.Rani
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/16
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
9.Yagappa
10.Anae Nirmala ... Respondents 4 to 10 / Respondents 1 to 7 /
Defendants
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.3 of 2015 dated 05.10.2017
on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam confirming the decreetal
order and fair order of partly allowing the E.A.No.37 of 2010 dated 02.09.2014
on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Santharaman
For Respondents : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan for R1 to R3
S.A.(MD)No.410 of 2018:
1.Manimegalai
2.Nagavalli
3.Sucila ... Appellants / Appellants/
Obstructors
1.Sri Ellaiamman and Throuwpathyamman Kovil,
Kumbakonam,
Rep. by Trustee,
M.V.Ramamoorthy (Deleted). ... 1st Respondent / 1st Respondent /
1st Respondent /Petitioner / Plaintiff
(The name of the trustee is deleted vide order
dated 05.08.2024 in S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411
and 412 of 2018 by GRSJ)
Elizabeth Arockiasamy (Died)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/16
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
2.Josephin
3.Rekleniya
4.Bowlin Hiruthayameri
5.Rani
6.Yagappa
7.Aney Nirmala ... Respondents 2 to 7 / Respondents /
Respondents
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2017 made in A.S.No.49 of 2014
on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam confirming the judgment
and decree dated 02.09.2014 made in E.A.No.11 of 2012 in E.P.No.24 of 2008
in O.S.No.600 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court,
Kumbakonam.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Mahendran
For Respondents : Mr.V.Santharaman for R1
S.A.(MD)No.411 of 2018:
1.Manimegalai
2.Nagavalli
3.Sucila ... Appellants / Appellants/
Obstructors
1.Sri Ellaiamman and Throuwpathyamman Kovil,
Kumbakonam,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/16
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
Rep. by Trustee,
M.V.Ramamoorthy (Deleted). ... 1st Respondent / 1st Respondent /
1st Respondent /Petitioner / Plaintiff
(The name of the trustee is deleted vide order
dated 05.08.2024 in S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411
and 412 of 2018 by GRSJ)
Elizabeth Arockiasamy (Died)
2.Josephin
3.Rekleniya
4.Bowlin Hiruthayameri
5.Rani
6.Yagappa
7.Aney Nirmala ... Respondents 2 to 7 / Respondents /
Respondents
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2017 made in A.S.No.50 of 2014
on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam confirming the judgment
and decree dated 02.09.2014 made in E.A.No.37 of 2012 in E.P.No.24 of 2008
in O.S.No.600 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court,
Kumbakonam.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Mahendran
For Respondents : Mr.V.Santharaman for R1
S.A.(MD)No.412 of 2018:
1.Manimegalai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/16
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
2.Nagavalli
3.Sucila ... Appellants / Appellants/
Obstructors
1.Sri Ellaiamman and Throuwpathyamman Kovil,
Kumbakonam,
Rep. by Trustee,
M.V.Ramamoorthy (Deleted). ... 1st Respondent / 1st Respondent /
1st Respondent /Petitioner / Plaintiff
(The name of the trustee is deleted vide order
dated 05.08.2024 in S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411
and 412 of 2018 by GRSJ)
Elizabeth Arockiasamy (Died)
2.Josephin
3.Rekleniya
4.Bowlin Hiruthayameri
5.Rani
6.Yagappa
7.Aney Nirmala ... Respondents 2 to 7 / Respondents /
Respondents
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2017 made in A.S.No.58 of 2014
on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam confirming the judgment
and decree dated 02.09.2014 made in E.A.No.49 of 2012 in E.P.No.24 of 2008
in O.S.No.600 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court,
Kumbakonam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/16
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
For Appellants : Mr.K.Mahendran
For Respondents : Mr.V.Santharaman for R1
COMMON JUDGEMENT
Sri Ellaiyamman and Draupadi Amman Kovil, Kumbakonam, represented
by its trustee filed O.S.No.89 of 1986 for recovery of possession. One Elizabeth
Arockiasamy figured as the sole defendant. The suit was filed on the basis of a
registered usufructuary mortgage deed executed on 24.01.1928 (Ex.A3). The
suit was decreed on 23.06.2005. The defendant was directed to surrender
possession of the suit property to the plaintiff / temple. Aggrieved by the same,
the defendant filed A.S.No.126 of 2005 before the Additional Sub Court,
Kumbakonam. The appeal was dismissed on 15.02.2006. Aggrieved by the
same, the defendant filed S.A.No.1160 of 2006. The second appeal was
dismissed on 14.09.2007. The plaintiff filed E.P.No.24 of 2008 on the file of
the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam to execute the decree. In
the said execution petition, Manimegalai, Nagavalli and Sucila filed E.A.No.37 of
2010, E.A.No.11 of 2012 and E.A.No.49 of 2013. E.A.No.37 of 2010 and
E.A.No.11 of 2012 were filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of Civil Procedure
Code. E.A.No.49 of 2013 was filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/16
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
Code. The executing Court dismissed E.A.No.11 of 2012 and E.A.No.49 of
2013 vide order dated 02.09.2014. It partly allowed E.A.No.37 of 2010 in
respect of the tiled house bearing Door No.9B comprised in T.S.No.152
measuring an extent of 526 ½ square feet. Aggrieved by the order passed in
E.A.No.37 of 2010, the plaintiff / temple filed A.S.No.3 of 2015 before the
Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam. Aggrieved by the orders passed against
them, Manimegalai, Nagavalli and Sucila filed A.S.Nos.49, 50 and 58 of 2014
before the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam. All the four appeals were
dismissed by a common judgment and decree dated 05.10.2017. Challenging
the same, the plaintiff / temple filed S.A.(MD)No.187 of 2018. It was admitted
on the following substantial questions of law on 20.06.2018:-
"(a) Whether the plaintiff temple is entitled for delivery of
possession against the obstructer is not having any document of title
as against the temple property and whether any adverse possession
can be claimed against the temple in view of amended Section 109 of
H.R.&C.E., Act?
(b) Whether an obstructionists were in possession of the
property in their own right by documents prior to 1928 upto 1976 the
year of filing of the suit?
(c) Whether the non-production of documents prior to the
usufructuary mortgage of the year 24.01.1928 and the assignment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/16
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
dated 11.07.1935 will create lawful possession on title on the
respondent against the property of the temple in a suit for redemption
of usufructuary mortgage?"
Manimegalai, Nagavalli and Sucila filed S.A.(MD)Nos.410, 411 and 412 of
2018. They were admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
"(i) In a suit for recovery of possession when the title of the
plaintiff is denied is it not the duty of the plaintiff to establish his title in
the suit?
(ii) Can a recovery of possession decree granted as against a
person who is actually not in possession of the suit property be executed
as against a person who is found to be actually in possession of the suit
property, more particularly when the person in actual possession is not a
party to the suit?
(iii)As per Sections 78,79 and 108 of the HR&CE Act when civil
suit for recovery of possession is barred in law, whether the Courts
below or correct in decreeing a suit?
(iv)Can a execution petition filed by the trustee of the temple be
represented by the Executive Officer of the temple without getting
property impleaded in the execution proceedings?”
2.The learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants reiterated
all the contentions set out in the respective memorandum of grounds and
pressed their respective cases.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/16
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
3.Let me take up S.A.No.412 of 2018 first. E.A.No.49 of 2013 was filed
under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned counsel appearing
for the appellants submitted that an application under Section 47 of the Civil
Procedure Code must be dealt like a suit. He faulted the executing Court for
having given a summary disposal to the E.A. filed by the appellants.
4.I am not swayed by the said submission. Section 47 of the Civil
Procedure Code reads as follows:-
“47.Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree.
—(1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the
decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the
execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined
by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.”
4* * * * *
(3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not
the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of
this section, be determined by the Court.”
[Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff
whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit
has been dismissed are parties to the suit.
Explanation II.—(a) For the purposes of this section, a
purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be
deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and
(b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9/16
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be
questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the
decree within the meaning of this section.]”
5.The plaintiff had obtained a decree against one Elizabeth Arockiasamy.
This decree was put to execution. Manimegalai, Nagavalli and Sucila did not
claim under Elizabeth Arockiasamy / original defendant in the suit. They set up
an independent claim. Section 47 will be applicable if only a question relating
to execution had been raised by the parties to the suit or by their representative
in interest. The applicants in E.A.No.49 of 2013 will not come under this
category. The application filed by them was not clearly maintainable. The
executing Court was justified in summarily dismissing the said E.A. Only if the
application fell within the scope of Section 47, it should be tried like a suit and
not otherwise. An application that did not fall within its scope and purview
deserved summary dismissal. No substantial question of law arises. The
Courts below have correctly approached the issue. In this view of the matter,
S.A.(MD)No.412 of 2018 stands dismissed.
6.E.A.No.37 of 2010 and E.A.No.11 of 2012 were filed under Order XXI
and Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code. The scope of this provision was dealt
with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2003) 12 SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10/16
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
219 (Ashan Devi v. Phulwasi Devi). This decision was cited with approval in a
subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 17 SCC
279 (Shamsher Singh v. Nahar Singh). Ashan Devi decision was followed by
a learned Judge of this Court in the decision reported in 2011-1-L.W. 647
(Munusamy v. Vengadachalam). It was held therein as follows:-
“16. Therefore, from the above judgments, it has been made
clear that in an enquiry Under Order XXI, Rule 97, the court has to
decide the rights of the obstructors who are in possession of the
property and there is no need to go into the title of the decree holder
even though the same is questioned by the obstructor. As held in the
judgment reported in AIR 1998 SC 1754, the questions which the
Executing Court is obliged to determine under Rule 101 must
possess two adjuncts. The first is that such dispute should have
legally arisen between the parties, and the second is, such questions
must be relevant for consideration and determination between the
parties. Further, in the said judgment, it has been made clear by the
Honourable Supreme Court that a third party, who questions the
validity of a transfer made by a decree holder to an assignee, cannot
claim that the question regarding its validity should be decided
during execution proceedings. Further, in the judgment reported in
2000 (10) SCC 405, it is made clear that an obstructor cannot be
dispossessed till his rights are adjudicated in appropriate
proceedings. In the decision reported in AIR 2004 SC 511 also it has
been made clear that the legislator purposely amended the
provisions in Order XXI to enable the third parties to seek
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11/16
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
adjudication of their rights in execution proceedings themselves with
a view to curtail prolongation of litigation and arrest the delay
caused in execution of decrees.
17. Therefore, it has been made clear by the Honourable
Supreme Court that in an enquiry under Order XXI Rule 97, when an
obstructor objects to the delivery of possession by the decree holder,
claiming independent right, the court has to find out whether the
obstructor has got any legal right to be in possession of the property
and if the court comes to the conclusion that he has got every right
to be in possession of the property, the court can pass orders to that
effect and dismiss the application filed by the decree holder and in
that proceedings, the court cannot go into the legality of the decree
passed in favour of the decree holder at the instance of the
obstructor. Therefore, the substantial question of law raised by the
appellants that the decree obtained by the first respondent/decree
holder is nullity and he has no right or title to A portion of the
property and that question has to be gone into execution proceedings
cannot be accepted. The substantial questions of law raised by the
appellants are decided against them.”
7.From the above case laws, one can easily come to the conclusion that
an applicant raising third party obstruction and seeking relief under Order XXI
Rule 97 must establish his independent title or legal right to possession. In this
case, no doubt, the applicants have shown the existence of a tiled house in a
portion of the suit property. It is true that this house was in existence since
1975 and that it was also assessed to property tax. It was also enjoying
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12/16
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
electricity service connection. The exhibits marked on the side of the applicants
clearly bear this out. But this by itself would not be sufficient. It is true that
mutations have been made in the town survey register on the strength of
settlement deed dated 08.02.2015 executed by Veeramuthu in favour of the
applicants. There has been one more execution of settlement deed in the year
2010 by Chinna Ponnu in favour of the applicants.
8.In both these documents, there is no tracing of title. There is nothing
on record as to how, the applicants came to be in possession of the property. It
is well settled that in an enquiry under Order XXI Rule 97 of Civil Procedure
Code, the decree holder's right and title cannot be in issue.
9.The Courts below simply went by the factum of possession alone.
They noticed that a tiled house had been put up and that the applicants are in
possession of the same. This cannot be the end of the matter. Something more
was required. The applicants ought to have shown as to how they acquired the
legal right to possession. In other words, the basis of possession must have
been delineated and established. This exercise was not undertaken. Failure to
prove legal right to possession is fatal to the case of the applicants. I, therefore,
answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the plaintiff / temple and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13/16
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
against the applicants in E.A.No.37 of 2010 and E.A.No.11 of 2012. I set aside
the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2017 in A.S.No.3 of 2015 on the file of
the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam. S.A.(MD)No.187 of 2018 is allowed.
S.A.(MD)Nos.410 and 411 of 2018 are dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.08.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
To:
1.The Principal Sub Court,
Kumbakonam.
2.The I Additional District Munsif Court,
Kumbakonam.
Copy to:
The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14/16
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15/16
S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias S.A.(MD)Nos.187, 410, 411 and 412 of 2018 20.08.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/16