AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The revision petition is directed against the delivery order passed in E.P.No.21/2003 dated 09.09.2004 pursuant to the final decree passed in
the partition suit O.S.No.104/1957 on the file of Kuzhithurai District Munsif Court.
The plea of the revision petitioner who is the 7th defendant in the suit and 7th respondent in EP is that the EP is barred by limitation. Therefore,
he has perfected the title by adverse possession.
Perusal of the records reveals that final decree in the suit was passed on 21.11.1970. The Execution Petition for executing the final decree had
been presented before the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, on 11.06.1996. In the Execution Petition, it is clearly stated that the earlier execution
petition E.P.No.382/1979 was closed on 30.04.1981. The reason for closing the earlier EP was due to the stay obtained by this revision petitioner
in I.A.No.1557/1979 in O.S.No. 104/1957. When I.A.No.1557/1979 got dismissed, the revision petitioner has preferred CRP.No.753/1981.
That was also dismissed on 27.02.1996.
Thereafter, the present execution petition is filed on 11.06.1996. This petition was not numbered due to certain defects. Meanwhile, the revision
petitioner has again obtained stay of the execution of the decree. This proceedings has culminated in dismissal of CMA.No. 24/1996 on
03.04.2002. Meanwhile, the mother of this revision petitioner has filed O.S.No.383/1980 and got interim stay and that suit was dismissed on
06.04.1983. There are few more proceedings initiated by this revision petitioner which has disabled the decree holder from getting his EP
presented on 11.06.1996 to be numbered. Therefore, his petition was returned on every re-presentation. Only after the dismissal of
CMA.No.24/1996 on 03.04.2002, the EP has been taken on file and assigned number E.P.No.21/2003.
The Execution Court in its order which is impugned before this Court has detailed out how the execution delayed by the revision petitioner and
how the EP is not barred by limitation. The verification of the original records confirms the same. The revision petitioner has conveniently
suppressed the fact that 2nd execution petition filed on 11.06.1996 after the dismissal of CRP.No.753/1981 on 27.02.1996. It was re-presented
and taken on file after dismissal of CMA.No.24/1996 dated 03.04.2002.
Whatever delay caused is due to the stay and injunction granted by the Courts at the instance of the revision petitioner and his mother.
Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner is baseless and false. Suppressing the facts, this revision petitioner has obtained stay of the
execution and has further delayed the execution of the decree of the year 1970 in the suit filed in the year 1957.
It is also pertinent to note that while other decree holders have got delivery of their shares, the respondents 1 to 6 alone were prevented from
getting the fruits of the decree due to spate of vexatious petitions for years. Having delayed the execution now the revision petitioner is taking a
plea of adverse possession.
Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the respondents 1 to 6. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.