Chandragiri, v. Narayana Pillai (Died),
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.09.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR 1.Chandragiri 2.Rajasekaran (Died) 3.S.Deepa 4.R.D.Adhithya (Minor) : Petitioners / Petitioners / Claimants / Nil (P3 and P4 were impleaded as legal repersentatives of the deceased 2nd respondent and (P4 is represented by the 3rd petitioner, as Mother and Guardian vide order dated 07.07.2020 made in CMP(MD)Nos.10557 to 10559 of 2019) .. Vs ..
Narayanan Pillai (died) 1.Sunnanda 2.Sunitha 3.Krishnan Nair Pankajakshi Amma (died) Hariharaj Nair (died) Thaniel (died) Padmajakshi Amma (died) Muthusamy Nadar (died) Muthian Nadar (died) Kamalakshi Amma (died) 4.Ponnian Nadar Lakshmanan Nadar (died) Maluk Mohammed (died) Kumaraswamy Nadar (died) 5.Sundaram Nadar 6.Kolappan Nadar 7.Sarojini Amma Lekshmanan Nadar (died) Appu Nadar (died) Bahuleyan Nair (died) 1/4
8.Madhavankutty Nair 9.Ananandavalli Amma Rajarajeswari Amma (died) Gnanamma (died) 10.Nagamony Nadar 11.Selvarajan 12.Rajan 13.Santha Kumari 14.Ajitha 15.Viju 16.Dhas 17.Kanakaraj 18.Sreenivasan 19.Nagamony Lekshmanan (died) Appu (died) 20.Gopalakrishnan 21.Muthukumar 22.Narayanan 23.Subramanian 24.Arumugam 25.Chandrakumar 26.Saraswathy Parameswaran (died) 27.Velayudhan Manikandan (Died) 28.Sreedevan 29.Sundaramony 30.Rajan 31.Ummal Beevi Shahul Hameed (died) 32.Chellaswamy 33.Thankaswamy 34.Ponnusamy Nadar 35.Retnaswamy 36.Murugan Gopalakrishnan (died) 37.Sundaram 38.Sumathi 39.Mohan 40.Murali 41.Anand 42.Syamala Kumari 43.Anitha 44.Beena 2/4
45.Sindhu 46.Deepa 47.Viju 48.Jegan 49.Suja 50.Anand 51.Mohan 52.Murali 53.Indira 54.Sumathy 55.Chellathankam 56.Jayan 57.Viji 58.Suja 59.Kamasakumari 60.Sivaprasad 61.Vijakumar : Respondents / Respondents / Respondents / LRs of deceased defendants / Defendants Lrs of deceased defendants PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the order and decreetal order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai in E.A.No.108 of 2011 in E.P.No.87 of 2007 in O.S.No.642 of 1969, dated 05.07.2017. For Petitioners : Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thambi
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dismissing the petitioners' interlocutory application in E.A.No.108 of 2011 in E.P.No.87 of 2007 in O.S.No.642 of 1969 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. 2.It is not in dispute that the revision petitioners are the legal heirs of 22nd defendant in the suit in O.S.No.642 of 1969. The said suit was filed for partition and for redemption of a mortgage. It is also admitted that a preliminary decree was passed on 13.10.1976 and the final decree was also passed on 17.01.1979. However, the execution petition was filed only on 05.10.2007, since another suit in O.S.No.390 of 1978 was pending and it was disposed of only on 28.02.2005. After the preliminary decree and final decree, the execution petition in E.P.No.87 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiffs for delivery.
3.In the execution petition, the revision petitioners filed the application in E.A.No.108 of 2011 in E.P.No.87 of 2007 in O.S.No.642 of 1969 under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98 CPC to declare and adjudicate the petitioners' title regarding an extent of 23 cents of land in S.No.2551 of Nalloor Village and 113⁄4 cents of land in S.No.2557 of Nalloor Village. The lower Court dismissed the petition filed by 3/4
the revision petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.
4.It is to be seen that the petitioners are only the legal heirs of the deceased 22nd defendant in the suit, against whom the suit for redemption was decreed. The petitioners, holding the derivative interest and got impleaded in the suit and in the execution petition as legal heirs of deceased 22nd defendant, cannot maintain a petition under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98 CPC to declare their title or to cause obstruction of delivery. The application under Order 21 Rule 97 and 98 can be filed only by the decree holder or by a third party to the suit.
5.The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the execution petition is filed beyond the period of limitation and that the order of delivery is unsustainable. The learned Counsel himself admitted that the execution petition was disposed on 05.07.2017. It is further admitted that no revision petition is filed as against the order passed in the Execution Petition. In such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served by keeping this revision petition and this Court does not find any error or irregularity in the order of lower Court.
6.As a result, this revision petition is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai in E.A.No.108 of 2011 in E.P.No.87 of 2007 in O.S.No.642 of 1969, dated 05.07.2017, is confirmed. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.
08.09.2020 cmr SDS (17.09.2020) 4P-2C 4/4