Syed Ibrahim, v. Raja Mohamed Maideed (Died)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.10.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS C.R.P.NPD (MD)No.2118 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 1.Syed Ibrahim 2.Syed Hussain 3.Panimal @ Mahaboob Beevi ...

Petitioners/Petitioners/ Respondents 2to4/Defendants 2 to 4 Vs.

Raja Mohamed Maideed (died) Mohamathu Masthan (died) Mahaboo @ Kadeer Batcha (died) Syed Mohamed Ghouse (died) Jalman @ Sharai Beevi (died) 1.P.Piyaras 2.Nanna @ Abdullah 3.R.Ameershan 4.Iqbal 5.Seyed K.Mohamed Hanifa 6.Kulam Thasthakeer 7.Khader John 8.Syed Rasul 9.Syed Abubacker 10.Syed Sulaiman 11.Sarunnisha 12.Mohamathu Umar 13.Bashakhan 14.Sheik Ibrahim 15.M.Jamruth 16.Noor Jahan 17.M.Khader John 18.M.Mumtaj 19.Mahaboob Jan Beevi 20.M.Pavul Ahamadhu 21.M.Sahinsha 22.M.Jinthasha Sheik Madhar 23.Jeenath 24.Hamrunnissha 25.Vahithabanu 26.Sahitha Ali ...

Respondents/Respondents/ Petitioner 1,5 to 27/Respondents/ Plaintiff 1 / Proposed L.Rs. 1 to 6

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the fair and decretal order dated 07.08.2015 made in unnumbered E.A.No. Nil of 2015 in E.P.No.92 of 2014 in O.S.No.139 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Subbaraj For Caveator : Mr.T.Selvan

ORDER

This is defendant's CRP.

2.The suit in O.S.No.139 of 1996 is a partition suit. Parties are governed under the Mohammed Law of inheritance. Preliminary decree was passed. Final decree application petition has been filed. Advocate / Commissioner was appointed. He filed his report. Based on that final decree also has been passed. Plaintiff filed E.P.No.92 of 2014 for delivery.

3.At this juncture, the defendants filed E.A. alleging that the decree is inexecutable and already steps have been taken to set aside the decree. The Execution Court dismissed E.A. at the unnumbering stage as it found no merit in it.

4.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the impugned order is unsustainable in law. The Execution Court has not considered the matter in accordance with law. They have also taken steps to set aside the decrees. 5.According to the learned counsel for the decree holders / plaintiffs the defendants want to protract the matter and there is nothing to prevent the execution of the decree. 6.I have anxiously considered the rival submission, perused the materials on record and I have also gone through the impugned order passed by the Execution Court. I find no perversity or illegality in the impugned order. In the circumstances, this CRP fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar nbj To 1.The Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli.

2.The Principal District Munsif , Tirunelveli.

+1 CC TO MR.P.SUBBARAJ, ADVOCATE, SR NO:58760 +1 CC TO MR.T.SELVAN, ADVOCATE, SR NO:58747 JAM /27.10.15/SKS-RR/3P-5C C.R.P.NPD (MD)No.2118 of 2015 06.10.2015