Madras High Court
Bhagyalakshmi vs Janarthana Rao [Died on 6 December, 2024
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
CRP NPD.No.4378 of 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date : 06.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
CRP NPD No.4378 of 2024 & CMP.No.24371 of 2024
1. Bhagyalakshmi
2. Krishnan
3. Ramesh
4. Sudhakar
5. Kantha
6. Elumalai
7. Siva
8. Vijaya
9. Radha . . . Petitioners
Versus
Janarthana Rao [died]
1. Shantha
2. Ravi Shankar
3. Padmaja . . . Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to call for
the records pertaining to the issue of the decreetal and fair order made in
E.A.No.8 of 2023 in E.P.No.175/1991 in Ejectment Suit No.44 of 1989 on the
Page 1 / 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP NPD.No.4378 of 2024
file of the X Judge/ Registrar [FAC], Small Causes Court, Chennai and set
aside the same.
For petitioner : Mr.Ashok Kumar D.
Respondent : Mr.D.P.Vasudevan
ORDER
Challenge has been made against the dismissal of the application filed by the revision petitioners under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code in the Execution Proceedings in E.P.No.175 of 1991 in Ejectment Suit in O.S.No.44 of 1987.
2. The suit has been filed for ejectment of the defendants from the suit property. The suit has been decreed on 31.07.1990 and the same has reached finality. The plaintiffs filed execution petition for recovery of possession of the suit property. The petitioners are the tenants from the year 1981. At this stage, an application has been taken out under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure mainly on the ground that the property is a Government land and Page 2 / 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP NPD.No.4378 of 2024 several occupants are already in enjoyment of the property and the decree holder based on the fraudulent document obtained a decree. Therefore, the said application has been filed. According to revision petitioners, a Vinayagar temple is also situated in the property and the land has been classified as Government land. The said petition has been opposed on the ground that the suit was contested by revision petitioners and other obstructors and all other earlier proceedings have been dismissed and the same has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Execution Court considered the earlier applications filed in the year 1991 by the obstructors including the judgment debtor, which has been upheld by the Apex Court in the year 1998 and thereafter, once again E.A.No.10 of 2024 has been filed to examine the Tahsildar, which was also dismissed by the Court. That apart, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 has also been considered, wherein, it clearly admitted the title of the respondents and dismissed the application.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Page 3 / 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP NPD.No.4378 of 2024 subject property is a Government land and the decree cannot be executed. Therefore, the application under section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable.
4. Heard both sides and perused entire materials available on record.
5. A perusal of the records show that what is canvassed before this Court is totally contrary to the stand taken in the application filed under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code. In the application it is the contention of the revision petitioners that the property is a Government property and by way of fraudulent document, decree has been obtained. Now a different contention has been put forth before this Court. In an earlier round of litigation, similar objections have been negatived and reached finality in the year 1998 itself. Similar applications with very same allegations have also been dismissed and those applications have also reached finality. The P.W.1 examined in this application also admitted dismissal of earlier applications filed by them. P.W.2 also in categorical terms admitted that he has encroached the decree holder’s property and put up construction. He also admitted that an Page 4 / 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP NPD.No.4378 of 2024 application in M.P..No.600 of 1991 has been allowed for removal of the obstructors which has been upheld by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1664 of 1998.
6. The Execution Petition is of the year 1991. All these years, delivery could not be effected for the reasons that several application are repeatedly filed. The very conduct of the obstructors, one way or other filing these type of applications clearly exhibit their only intention to obstruct the proceedings. From the earlier applications decided in this regard, it is clear that the revision petitioner has no right, whatsoever, in the suit property. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the Order of the trial Court which warrants interference.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The trial Court shall issue warrant for delivery and also police protection directly for effecting eviction. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of two months. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.12.2024 Page 5 / 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP NPD.No.4378 of 2024 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order vrc To, The Judge/Registrar [FAC], Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
Page 6 / 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP NPD.No.4378 of 2024 N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc CRP NPD No.4378 of 2024 06.12.2024 Page 7 / 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis