Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2830 (MAD)

J. Y. Venkatesh v. J. Ramaiya

2013-08-05

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment : 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.346 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur is the petitioner herein. He is aggrieved against the order passed by the Executing Court in dismissing the execution petition in E.P. No.24 of 2008 by holding that the respondents have not interfered with the decree holder's possession and enjoyment of the suit property as per the decree. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner/decree holder that the Trial Court decreed the suit in respect of 0.95 acres at S.F.No.53/1, Kagganur Village and when such decree is in force, the respondents interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and therefore, he filed the execution petition. It is his further contention that the Court below has gone into other irrelevant consideration and had given an erroneous finding as if the petitioner herein is not in actual possession and enjoyment of 0.95 acres as per the decree granted in his favour. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 submits that the respondents 1 to 4 are not interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as per the decree and when there is no proof of interference placed by the petitioner, the Court below has rightly rejected the execution petition. 5. Admittedly, the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner wherein the description of the property in the decree is referred as hereunder : "Description of the Properties : Krishnagiri RD., Hosur SRD., Kagganur Village S.No. 53/1, Dry Extent 1.62 acres Asst. Rs.3.24 in this 0.95 acres only Asst Rs.1.85 along with a well and electrified pump set with the following boundaries : East : Yellappa's land; West : 1st Defendant's land in the same S.No. South : N.Yellappa's house North : Sarjapuram Road". 6. It is admitted by both sides that the decree has become final and conclusive between the parties. Thus, it is needless to say that the petitioner is entitled to enjoy the fruits of the decree to the extent of 0.95 acres. When that being the case, the Executing Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the said extent of 0.95 acres, to which, the decree has been granted in favour of the petitioner. Thus, it is needless to say that the petitioner is entitled to enjoy the fruits of the decree to the extent of 0.95 acres. When that being the case, the Executing Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the said extent of 0.95 acres, to which, the decree has been granted in favour of the petitioner. When an attempt of interference is complained by the decree holder against the respondents, it is for the Executing Court to consider the same and pass orders only in accordance with the decree passed and not beyond the scope of the decree. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in his contention that the order passed by the Court below in going beyond the decree and giving a finding with regard to the extent of the suit property is totally unwarranted and unjustified. 7. However, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 stated that the respondents 1 to 4 are not interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of 0.95 acres. 8. The said statement of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 is recorded. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to enjoy the suit property as per the decree granted by the Trial Court dated 20.11.1998. It is further made clear that in spite of the specific statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, if the respondents make any further attempt of interference, it is open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Executing Court for redressal of his grievance. 9. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is closed. No costs.