CRP/6305/2026 of Milton Ducless Vs S. Sivakumar on 16 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

The judgment debtor/81st defendant is the revision petitioner in CRP.No.6305 of 2026, challenging the order in EA.No.4 of 2024 in EP.No.7 of 2019. Similarly, the 58th defendant and judgment debtor is the revision petitioner in CRP.No.6318 of 26, challenging the order in EA.No. 3 of 24 in EP.No.7 of 2019.

2. I have heard Ms.M.Muthuyazhini, learned counsel for the revision petitioners in both the revision petitions and Mr.N.Umapathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree holder in both the revision petitions.

3. Mr.M.Muthuyazhini, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner in CRP.No.6305 of 2026 had purchased house sites Nos.7 and 8 in the suit schedule property for a valuable sale consideration from none else than the respondent's father's power agent and pursuant to such purchase, he had also constructed a house in site No.8 and a shed in site No.7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner's father and

thereafter the petitioner have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property for more than four decades and the petitioner also obtained patta in his favour. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the Executing Court has erroneously dismissed the Section 47 petition, without adverting to the valid patta and continuous possession for nearly five decades.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the Executing Court has also failed to note the construction of the house and shed put up over site Nos.8 and 7 respectively and the error committed by the Executing Court in ignoring the fact that the decree holder has portrayed the suit property as vacant land. The learned counsel would further state that the suit was originally filed for partition and it is a collusive suit amongst the respondents and innocent purchasers like the petitioners have been put to serious prejudice. The learned counsel further states that the Executing Court also failed to note that the final decree itself was passed arbitrarily, ignoring the bona fide purchase made by the petitioner. The learned counsel would therefore state that the dismissal of the Section 47 application is clearly erroneous and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to relief.

5. Insofar as CRP.No.6318 of 2026, advancing similar arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the father of the petitioner had purchased a portion of the suit property through the respondent’s father's power

agent as early as in 1974 for valuable sale consideration and despite repeated request made by the petitioner's father, sale deed was not executed in favour of the petitioner's father. The learned counsel therefore states that the very suit for partition in OS.No.419 of 1992 was clearly a collusive attempt to defeat the genuine rights of bonafide purchasers like the revision petitioners in both the revision petitions.

6. Per contra, Mr.N.Umapathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree holder in both the revision petitions contends that the petitioners cannot claim to be bonafide purchasers, that too, based on unregistered documents and excepting relying upon revenue records, there is no acceptable or credible evidence to be relied on, to claim valid and independent title. He would therefore state that the Executing Court has rightly dismissed the Section 47 applications and no interference is warranted with the well considered orders passed by the Executing Court in both the cases.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

8. The revisions are at the instance of two independent sets of purchasers, who claim to be bonafide purchasers for value. In fact, they claim that they have paid sale consideration to none else than the respondent's father, represented by

his power agent. Admittedly no registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners is produced. In fact, on the contrary, it is the admitted position of the petitioners that despite several requests made by the petitioners, registered sale deeds were not executed in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners only relied on a patta, which is issued based on possession alone. It is only a revenue document and not a document of title. In such circumstances, the mere fact that patta has been obtained by the petitioners is not a ground to entertain their objections or the Section 47 application, questioning the executability of a valid decree passed in favour of the respondent/decree holder. The decree was passed way back in 1997 in a suit filed in the year 1992 and final decree has also been passed and the respondent/decree holder has not been able to enjoy the fruits of the decree for almost three decades as on date.

9. There is absolutely no merit in the Section 47 application and the Executing Court has rightly found that there is no merit in the objections taken in the Section 47 applications and the admitted fact that there is not even a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners has also been duly taken note of by the Executing Court. I do not find any error committed by the Executing Court in dismissing the objection applications filed by the petitioners, warranting interference in revision.

10. In fine, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, considering that the petitioners have been in possession for the past several decades, I am inclined to grant reasonable time to the petitioners to vacate and hand over vacant possession peacefully to the respondent/decree holder. The petitioners shall continue to occupy the suit property until 31.12.2026, on or before which date, the petitioners shall vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises under their occupation, without any protest or demur. In the event of there being any default committed by the petitioners in not vacating and handing over vacant possession of the suit property by 31.12.2026, then the respondent/decree holder shall be entitled to proceed with the execution petitions and the Executing Court shall ensure that possession is delivered to the respondent/decree holder, within a period of 15 days, i.e., on or before 15.01.2027. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 16-10-2026 ATA To The Principal District Munsif, Pollachi.

P.B.BALAJI J. ATA CRP Nos. 6305 & 6318 of 2026 16-10-2026