Judgment :- 1. The decree-holder in R.C.O.P.No.16 of 1989 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Karur is the revision petitioner in both the revisions. The above revision petitions are filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. 2. One Govindarajulu had 8 sons and one daughter. His wife is Muthialu Ammal. The sons are G.Ramachandran, G.Venkatesan, G.Udayavar, G.Ramanujam, G.Leelakrishnan, G.Umakandan alias Munusamy, G.Baskar, G.Santhanam and G.Jayaraman. His daughter is Krishnaveni. The first respondent in this revision is the daughter of Krishnaveni. 3. The decree-holder is the adopted son of the said G.Ramachandran. The decree-holder filed revision petition against respondents 2 to 5 and obtained an order of eviction. The same was confirmed in appeal and revision also. When the proceedings was initiated for eviction, the first respondent herein filed an obstruction petition under Sec.47 of Code of Civil Procedure to declare that the eviction decree is invalid and is not liable to be executed. In this connection, it is worthwhile to note that the respondents 3 to 5 in the eviction petition are none other than the children of Udayavar who is one of the sons of Govindarajulu, and the present first respondent is also the wife of U.Mohan, the third respondent herein and who is one of the tenants in the building. 4. In the claim petition, the first respondent contended that Govindarajulu did not have any right over the property and the property only belonged to his wife Muthialu Ammal. Fraudulently he has taken a release deed from Krishnaveni Ammal on 5.3.1958 and the same in invalid. It is also said that thereafter Govindarajulu executed a settlement Deed on 9.2.1962 under which G.Ramachandran, elder son obtained right over the property through whom the present petitioner also claims right. The claimants further submitted that all the documents are invalid and the same has to be ignored and her mother being one of the legal heirs of her mother. She is a part owner of the property. 5. For the said claim petition a detailed counter was also filed. It may also be noted, simultaneously the very same claimant filed another suit as O.S.No.34 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Karur and the same is also pending. She is a part owner of the property. 5. For the said claim petition a detailed counter was also filed. It may also be noted, simultaneously the very same claimant filed another suit as O.S.No.34 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Karur and the same is also pending. In the detailed counter to the claim petition, the petitioner herein submitted that the claimant is not having any right or interest and even on the basis of the averments in the claim petition, she is not having any right over the property. She only alleges that the document executed by her mother is invalid. Even the document is invalid, it is only the mother who is getting right and so long as she is alive, the present application is not maintainable. It is also contended that the decree-holder was given right to evict the respondents on the basis of finding that they are his tenants. The claimant is neither a person claiming under them nor she is having any independent title. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. The executing court took evidence of the matter consisting oral and documentary evidence. On the side of the claimant, Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked and on the side of the respondent Ex.B-1 was marked. The claimant also got examined as P.W.1 apart from another witness as P.W.2. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the respondent. 7. Evaluating the evidence, the lower court held that the claim petition is sustainable and eviction decree cannot be liable to be executed. The findings are challenged in the revision under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. Consequent to allowing the claim petition. Execution petition was also dismissed which necessitated the decree-holder in filing two revisions. 8. When the matter came up for admission I directed notice of motion and thereafter the respondents also entered appearance. I heard the matter in detail. The admitted facts are that Govindarajulu had 8 sons and a daughter. The petitioner herein is the adopted son of one of the sons of G.Ramachandran. Govindarajulu executed a settlement Deed under which the title and ownership over the property vested with G.Ramachandran and on his death devolved on the adopted son, the petitioner herein. The property was occupied by the tenants who are respondents 2 to 5. The eviction petition was filed by the revision petitioner. Govindarajulu executed a settlement Deed under which the title and ownership over the property vested with G.Ramachandran and on his death devolved on the adopted son, the petitioner herein. The property was occupied by the tenants who are respondents 2 to 5. The eviction petition was filed by the revision petitioner. Eviction petition was filed on the grounds that the tenants have committed default of rent and denied the title of the landlord. Both these grounds were found in favour of the petitioners, and decree for eviction was passed. The tenants are none other than one of the sons of Govindarajulu Udayavar and his sons who are the respondents in this case. The claimant is none other than the grant daughter of Govindarajulu, born to his daughter Krishnaveni Ammal is still alive. 9. When the order of eviction became final and eviction proceedings were initiated, a suit was filed by the first respondent herein alleging that Govindarajulu has taken release deed from her mother without authority and the same is invalid. Govindarajulu did not have right over the property and the settlement deed executed by him, consequent to the release deed executed by Krishnaveni Ammal is also invalid. O.S.No.34 of 1998 was filed by him making her mother also as defendant. The suit is pending. The claim petition is also filed alleging the same facts, to declare that the order of eviction is invalid and the same cannot be executed. 10. The executing court has found that the release deed executed by Krishnaveni Ammal is invalid. The same was executed by her at a time when she was minor. Consequently, it was held that Krishnaveni Ammal continues to be the owner of the property. The claimant who is the daughter of the Krishnaveni Ammal will be entitled to a share of the property. An objection was raised before the lower court that the claim petition itself is not maintainable so long as Krishnaveni Ammal is alive. The same was answered by the lower court stating that since Krishnaveni Ammal is not physically well, the claimant is entitled to put forward a claim and the objection was overruled. 11. After hearing both sides, I feel that the impugned order is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. 12. The same was answered by the lower court stating that since Krishnaveni Ammal is not physically well, the claimant is entitled to put forward a claim and the objection was overruled. 11. After hearing both sides, I feel that the impugned order is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. 12. As rightly argued by the counsel for the petitioner, the claimant as on date has no right over any portion of the property. Even the entire claim petition is read over as a whole she only claims that her mother is entitled to a share. She by herself is not claiming any right in the property. So long as her mother is alive, the claimant cannot put forward a case and the same is not liable to be adjudicated. Under O.21, Rule 97 of Code of civil Procedure, the right, title and interest of the claimant is to be adjudicated. The person who files a claim petition must have a subsisting right or interest over the property. The claim petition did not disclose any right or interest in the scheduled property. 13. The rent control petition was allowed after a finding that there is a landlord-tenancy relationship between the petitioner and other respondents. Even if the petitioner is not the owner, he continues to be the landlord and in that capacity, he is entitled to get possession. The status of other respondents is not even disputed in the claim petition. The claimant has also not put forward in the petition that she is a landlord. On the said circumstances, it is argued that the filing of a claim petition will itself prevent a validly obtained order from being executed. I find force in the contention of the decree-holder and I accept it. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents putforth his arguments to support the order. I asked the learned counsel as to the locus standi of claimant in filing such claim petition, especially when her mother is still alive. The counsel for the respondents was not in a position to give a satisfactory answer. The question whether the release deed executed by her mother is invalid or not also cannot be adjudicated in this case, so long as her mother is alive. The document is executed in the year 1958 and her mother remained silent for the past 40 years. The question whether the release deed executed by her mother is invalid or not also cannot be adjudicated in this case, so long as her mother is alive. The document is executed in the year 1958 and her mother remained silent for the past 40 years. When the mother is not challenging the release deed, the claimant, Whose right is only under her mother is precluded from putting forward a claim of this nature. 15. In the result, I set aside the impugned order and allow the revisions with costs. The claim petition filed by the first respondent herein as E.A.No.45 of 1998 in E.P.No.4 of 1998 is dismissed with costs. I direct the executing court to restore the E.P.No.4 of 1998 to its file and see that the decree holder is given possession of the property without any further delay. The lower court is directed to order delivery of the property and see that the building is handed over to the decree-holder within 15 days from the date of production of copy of the order. I further direct the lower court to provide the petitioner adequate and necessary police protection for implementing the order of eviction. If the doors of the building are locked, necessary authority also be given to the bailiff or Amin to break open the same so that the order of eviction could be implemented without any delay. The lower court need not wait for a formal application from the decree-holder for this purpose. The lower court is also directed to report compliance of this order by 23.9.1998. Call on 23.9.1998. 16. With the above observations. the civil revision petitions are allowed with costs. Advocate fees Rs.3,000. Consequently, the C.M.P.No.5839 of 1998 in C.R.P.No.1148 of 1998 is closed.