Skip to content


Devaraja Pillai and anr. Vs. K.R. Purushothama Chettiar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1981)1MLJ462
AppellantDevaraja Pillai and anr.
RespondentK.R. Purushothama Chettiar and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....originally the respondents herein obtained a decree in o.s. no. 137 of 1975 for possession of the suit land, as early as 28th october, 1976. e.p. no. 27 of 1977 was filed for taking delivery of the land decreed in favour of the respondent herein. this was obstructed by the petitioners herein along with others. hence, the respondents herein filed e.a. no. 249 of 1977 against the present petitioners and also two other obstructors. the petitioners herein contended that they are in possession of a portion of the suit land in their capacity as tenants under r.w. 2. the first petitioner herein examined himself as r.w. 1 and the person under whom the petitioners state that they are the tenants, was examined as r.w. 2. r.w. 2 claimed that he has got a will in his favour in respect of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P. R. Gokulakrishnan, J.

1. This revision petition arises out of an order passed in E.A. No. 249 of 1977.

2. E.A. No. 249 of 1977 is a petition to remove the obstruction and deliver vacant possession of the property to the respondents herein. Originally the respondents herein obtained a decree in O.S. No. 137 of 1975 for possession of the suit land, as early as 28th October, 1976. E.P. No. 27 of 1977 was filed for taking delivery of the land decreed in favour of the respondent herein. This was obstructed by the petitioners herein along with others. Hence, the respondents herein filed E.A. No. 249 of 1977 against the present petitioners and also two other obstructors. The petitioners herein contended that they are in possession of a portion of the suit land in their capacity as tenants under R.W. 2. The first petitioner herein examined himself as R.W. 1 and the person under whom the petitioners state that they are the tenants, was examined as R.W. 2. R.W. 2 claimed that he has got a will in his favour in respect of the portion in question and he had let it out to the petitioners herein. Apart from these facts, the petitioners contended that they have Exhibits B-1 to B-5 which will establish their possession of a portion of the land in their individual capacity. The respondents herein contended that they have got a lawful decree in O.S. No. 137 of 1975 against one Natesa Naicker, who was in unlawful possession of the suit property and that the petitioners herein are obstructors without any right, title or interest in the suit property. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore, after elaborately dealing with the evidence let in by the respective parties and also taking into consideration the documentary evidence produced before him, came to the conclusion that the petitioners herein are obstructors set up by the judgment-debtor and finally ordered the removal of the obstruction by the petitioners herein.

3. Aggrieved at the order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore the petitioners, who were respondents 2 and 3 in E.A. No. 249 of 1977 have filed this Civil Revision Petition.

4. It is clear from the evidence on record that the documents Exhibits B-2 to B-5 came into existence subsequent to the suit filed by the respondent herein. As regards Exhibit B-1, which is a municipal tax receipt for Rs. 3.75 dated 26th June, 1973, I am of the view that the same is in respect of a licence for vending milk, in favour of the first petitioner herein. This will not, in any way, give right to the petitioners herein to be in the suit property. The evidence on record clearly established that the respondents have got a valid decree for possession and the petitioners are unnecessarily obstructing to get delivery of a portion of the land which is occupied by the petitioner herein. There is absolutely no error of jurisdiction not any miscarrige of justice in the order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge.

5. Mr. D. K. Srinivasagopalan, learned Counsel for the respondents herein further states that only an appeal will lie and not a revision. It is clear from the order that the same has been passed Order 21, Rule 98, Civil Procedure Code. Order 21, Rule 103, states as follows:

Where any application has been adjudicated upon under Rule 96 or 100, the order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as an appeal or otherwise as it were a decree.

If the order passed under Order 21, Rule 98, Civil Procedure Code, is treated as a decree as provided under Order 21, Rule 103 Civil Procedure Code, the present Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable. Both on merits and also on the ground that the civil revision petition is not maintainable, I am convinced that there is absolutely no substance in the present civil revision petition. In these circumstances, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //