Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10(a) The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the finding of the Executing Court that Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Coimbatore has given a specific finding in O.s.No.253 of 2007 that suit property and other properties are ancestral properties of respondents 1, 2, 3 & 4 and the first respondent is entitled to 1/4th share in the said property including the suit property is contrary to the preliminary decree of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Coimbatore in O.S.No.253 of 2007. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Coimbatore has not passed any reasoned judgment, has not marked any documents and has not referred to any of the documents. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Coimbatore has not given finding that the suit property is ancestral property. On the other hand, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Coimbatore has only said claim proved, preliminary decree is passed as prayed for with costs .

22(c) The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No.III, Coimbatore, in the preliminary decree did not discuss and consider the averments made by the first respondent in her suit in O.S.No.253 of 2007 but simply decreed the suit without giving any reason for the same. The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No.III, Coimbatore did not hold in the preliminary decree that the suit property in the partition suit are ancestral properties and there is nothing on record to show that the first respondent has proved that the said properties are ancestral properties. When the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No.III, Coimbatore has not given any finding that the properties are ancestral properties, the Executing Court has erroneously held that the District Judge has given a finding that the petition mentioned property and other properties are ancestral properties of respondents 1, 2, 3 & 4 and the first respondent is entitled to 1/4th share in the said property including the suit property. While considering an application under Section 47 CPC, a court can hold that a decree is inexecutable only when the said decree was passed by a court having no jurisdiction or void or nullity or is not executable under the law. None of these condition exists in the present case and learned Judge, without considering these facts erroneously allowed the application.