Madras High Court
Kondamuri Sri Hari Kusuma Kumar vs Kamireddi Sattiraju (Died) on 21 June, 2018
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 21.06.2018
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
C.R.P.(PD).No. 818 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.4509 of 2018
1. Kondamuri Sri Hari Kusuma Kumar
2. Kanakala Narasimha Murthy
3. Karneedi Satynarayana ... Petitioners
Vs.
Kamireddi Sattiraju (died)
Kamireddi Mangayamma (died)
1. Kamireddy Sitarathnam
2. Chamanula Krishnaveni
3. Kamireddy Satyanarayanna
4. Nakka Padma
5. Kamirddy Subramanyam
6. Kondamuri Bhoolokeswari ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order dated 20.12.2017 passed in E.A.No.1 of 2017 in E.P.No.14 of 2007 in O.S.No.236 of 1982 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Yanam.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Gnanasekar
For Respondents : Mr.I.Abrar Md.Abdullah
O R D E R
The relief sought for in this revision petition is to set aside the order dated 20.12.2017 passed in E.A.No.1 of 2017 in E.P.No.14 of 2007 in O.S.No.236 of 1982 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Yanam.
2. The revision petitioners are the obstructors in E.A.No.1 of 2017 in E.P.No.14 of 2017. The sixth respondent is decree holder in O.S.No.236 of 2018 dated 23.02.1984. Subsequently, the Decree holder/sixth respondent filed an execution petition in E.P.No.14 of 2007 in O.S.No.236 of 1982. After discussing the facts, the Executing Court allowed the Execution petition and ordered for delivery of possession. While delivering the property mentioned in the suit to the decree holder, it was found that there were some obstructors. Therefore, the decree holder filed an applications in E.A.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of 2017 in E.P.No.14 of 2007 in O.S.No.236 of 1982 to remove the obstructions, for granting power to Amin to arrest Judgment debtor, to break open the locks affixed to the schedule property and for granting police aid to the Amin at the time of delivery.
3. After an elaborate discussions, the Executing Court allowed the application in E.A.No.1 of 2017 in E.P.No.14 of 2007 and dismissed the other applications.
4. Aggrieved against the order of the Executing Court dated 20.12.2017, the obstructors/revision petitioners are before this Court with the present revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the obstructors are the tenants and they are in the possession of property as tenants and they have also filed the suits in O.S.Nos.28, 29 and 30 of 2014. The suits were dismissed for default against which the appeals in C.M.A.Nos.11,12 and 13 of 2016 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Puducherry are filed to restore suits in O.S.Nos.28, 29 and 30 of 2014 and the same are pending. During the pendency of appeals, the decree holder filed the execution petition. Therefore the order passed by the Executing Court is not in accordance with law. The same is liable to be set aside.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that though initially the suit in O.S.No.236 of 1982 was dismissed, subsequently, an appeal was preferred in A.S.No.214 of 1984, wherein this Court set aside the order of the trial Court against which the Civil Appeal preferred before the Supreme Court through SLP was dismissed. The Supreme Court reversed the order passed by this Court in letter patent appeal. Therefore, the decree attains its finality. Subsequently, the execution petition filed to execute the decree in E.P.No.14 of 2017 for delivery of the property and the delivery was ordered on 20.12.2017.
7. The Execution applications are filed for removal of obstruction with the aid of police to deliver the property. While deciding the application, the executing Court has to see as to whether there is any obstruction or not? If the revision petitioners are the obstructors, the executing Court ought to have passed the order of removal of obstruction with the police aid. Neither the tenant nor any one has the right over the property or to retain in possession. since they are obstructors, they are liable to be evicted by due process of law and the Executing Court has found that since they are obstructing the order of the trial Court the order of the executing Court need not be interfered with.
8. Heard both sides and perused the records placed before this Court.
9. There is a decree in O.S.No.236 of 1982 passed in the Civil Appeal by the Hon'ble Apex Court and thereafter the respondent filed the Execution petition in E.P.No.14 of 2007 which is for delivery of the property and delivery was ordered by the executing Court. At the time of taking delivery, the Court found that there are some obstructors therefore the decree holder filed applications in E.A.Nos.1,2,3 and 4 of 2017. Without any valid right, the revision petitioners are obstructing to take the delivery of the property and therefore the decree holder filed the application before the trial Court to remove the obstructions.
10. Since the revision petitioners have not established any legal right to continue in possession of the property, the order passed by the Executing Court in E.P.No.1 of 2017 in E.P.No.14 of 2007 is confirmed.
11. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Executing Court and finds no merits in this revision petition.
P.VELMURUGAN, J., vum
12. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
21.06.2018 Index:Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order vum To The Subordinate Judge, Yanam.
C.R.P.(PD).No. 818 of 2018 & C.M.P.No.4509 of 2018