T PANDISELVAM Vs. M SIKKANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents / plaintiffs levied the suit in O.S.No.232 of 2010 for specific performance. It is found that pursuant to the decree passed in the above mentioned suit, the respondents, also obtaining the sale deeds in respect of the suit properties involved in the said suit, preferred E.P.No.9 of 2011 for obtaining the possession of the properties involved in the subject matter. It is further found that the respondents have been delivered the possession of the properties for which they had levied the execution proceedings, by the Amin concerned and while so, the revision petitioners seem to have moved the Executing Court by filing various claim applications under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) According to the revision petitioners, the respondents in the guise of the decree obtained in the suit preferred by them against the defendants in the said suit are attempting to grab their properties to which the respondents are not entitled to and further according to the revision petitioners, the suit properties of O.S.No.232 of 2010 do not exist or lie on the ground as claimed by the respondents and on the other hand, according to the revision petitioners, they had purchased the properties by way of the sale deed, dated 03.10.1983 from their vendors and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying necessary revenue charges etc., without any interruption and further according to them, the suit is pending as levied by them for permanent injunction in respect of the properties purchased by them in O.S.No.254 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur and it is their further case that the Commissioner had also been appointed in the said suit and accordingly, he had also inspected the properties concerned and filed his report and it is also their case that there is another suit pending with reference to the same issue in O.S.No.5 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur and therefore, according to them, the respondents without establishing that the properties in respect of which they had obtained the decree actually exist or lie on the ground, in collusion with the defendants in the said suit having obtained a decree fraudulently are attempting to grab the properties belonging to the revision petitioners in the guise of the said decree to which, the respondents are not legally entitled to and hence, according to them, the claim applications.

(3.) Pending the above said claim applications and also the proceedings in the execution proceedings as detailed above, it is found that the revision petitioners have also preferred applications seeking for the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the properties concerned with the help of the Surveyor along with the title deeds of the revision petitioners and other documents and file a report and plan so as to enable the Court to determine that the properties involved in the suit in O.S.No.232 of 2010 do not exist or lie on the ground all. The said applications preferred by the revision petitioners seeking for the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner was stoutly resisted by the respondents herein by stating that only with a view to delay the delivery proceedings and the recording of the same and further in order to stifle the genuine attempts of the respondents from getting the delivery of the properties concerned to which they are entitled to as per the decree obtained by them in the suit, the claim applications have been preferred by the revision petitioners, for the same reason, the applications seeking for the appointment of the Commission have also been preferred and if at all the revision petitioners have got any valid claim to the properties involved in the subject matter, it is for them to establish their case with the documents available with them and they cannot seek any title to the properties concerned through the Commission Report etc., and hence, the Commission applications preferred by the revision petitioners are liable to be rejected.