Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The second appeal is allowed only to the limited extent and remanded to the Executing Court and the decree will be in the terms as stated above. There will be no order as to costs."

28. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid judgment of this Court made in S.A.No.340 of 1978 dated 25.02.1981, I could see that this Court had come to a conclusion that the finding of the then first appellate court that the defendant was entitled to the The Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1971 would apply to the defendant, has to be tested by the Executing Court instead of Authorised Officer as designated in the said Act. According to the said direction, the Executing Court has to execute the decree subject to a finding to be reached by it after appointing a Commissioner to find out the nature of possession of the defendant in the suit property as to whether he has put up a betel nut shop and he is residing and if the residing is for the purpose of running the shop, the execution can be carried out and in case if the defendant is using the portion only for residing purpose, then there would be no ejectment. The Execution Court was also directed to find whether on the date of enforcement of this Act in the year 1971 and subsequently thereafter, the defendant was in occupation of any portion for the purpose of running the shop and whether the shop was run or not during the period when the Act came into force until the date 25.02.1981.