Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ejectment execution in C Chinnappa vs Mr P Chandramouly S/O.Late ... on 22 April, 2014Matching Fragments
63. Sri Sridhar submits that site Nos.65 and 66 do not exist. He asserts that even if they exist, they are not in the land at Sy.No.50/2. He brings to my notice the striking off a portion of the sale deed at Ex.P2. He submits that the survey number appears to have been first mentioned, but subsequently it is struck off.
64. The learned counsel submits that O.S.No.1995/2009 is filed by the appellants seeking the ejectment of Sri P.Chandrashekhar Rao from the premises in question. The said suit is decreed. He submits that the appellants have resorted to the execution of the decree passed in O.S.No.1995/2009 two months after the dismissal of their suit (O.S.No.7887/2007). He submits that as the appellants have obtained the ejectment decree even when they are not the owners, the defendant No.1 has filed the obstructing application in the execution proceedings.