CRP/5669/2025 of S.VIGNESHWARAN Vs VALLIATHAL (Died) by legal heirs 1. Dhandapani gou on 9 October 2026

1. Dhandapani Gounder

2. Nallammal @ Nallathal

3. Dhanalakshmi Eswaramoorthi (Died)

4. Thamaraiselvi

5. Nandhakumar

6. Naveenkumar

7. Vallinayaki

8. Kandasamy Gounder Deivathal (Died)

9. Savithri

10. S.Selvaraj .. Respondents in all CRPs Prayer in CRP.No.5669 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 25.10.2025 in E.A.No.6 of 2024 in E.P.No.6 of 2015 in O.S.No.473 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram and consequently allow E.A.No.6 of 2024 in E.P.No.6 of 2015 in O.S.No.473 of 1994. Prayer in CRP.No.425 of 2026: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 13.10.2025 in E.A.No.8 of 2025 in

E.A.No.6 of 2024 in E.P.No.6 of 2015 in O.S.No.473 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram and consequently allow E.A.No.8 of 2025 in E.A.No.6 of 2024 in E.P.No.6 of 2015 in O.S.No.473 of 1994. Prayer in CRP.No.426 of 2026: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 13.10.2025 in E.A.No.9 of 2025 in E.A.No.6 of 2024 in E.P.No.6 of 2015 in O.S.No.473 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram and consequently allow E.A.No.9 of 2025 in E.A.No.6 of 2024 in E.P.No.6 of 2015 in O.S.No.473 of 1994. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Saikrishnan in all CRPs For Respondents : Mr.Deepanuday for RR1 to 4 in CRP.No.5669 of 2025 and RR1 to 7 in CRP.Nos.425 & 426 of 2026 Mr.Vengadesh Durairaja V.K for R9 in all CRPs No appearance for RR5, 6, 8 & 10 in CRP.No.5669 of 2025 No appearance for R8 in CRP.Nos.425 & 426 of 2026 COMMMON ORDER A third party to the suit proceedings is the revision petitioner. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed, after due enquiry, as against which, CRP.No.5669 of 2025 has been preferred.

2. The other two revision petitions, viz., CRP.Nos.425 & 426 of 2026 have been filed, challenging the dismissal of applications in E.A.No.8 of 2025 and E.A.No.9 of

2025 in the Section 47 application filed by the revision petitioner, with prayers for reopening and issuing summons. Therefore, if the main revision petition, namely, CRP.No.5669 of 2025 is decided, the order in the other revision petitions will follow suit.

3. I have heard Mr.T.Saikrishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in all revision petitions, Mr.Deepanuday, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and 7 in CRP.Nos.4669 of 2025 and respondents 1 to 7 in CRP.Nos.425 & 426 of 2026 and Mr.M.Vengadesh Durairaja V.K, learned counsel for the 9th respondent in all revision petitions.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would firstly contend that the petitioner claims as a third party, asserting right, title and interest over the decreetal property under a settlement deed executed by his father, who had in turn, purchased the suit property in the year 1999 from one Selvaraj, who was the first purchaser from Kandasamy Gounder, whose sister filed the suit for partition in O.S.No.473 of 1994. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that firstly, the petitioner was not a party to the suit proceedings and even assuming that his father’s purchase and the settlement deed in favour of the revision petitioner were hit by doctrine of lis pendens being admittedly transactions entered into, after the filing of the partition suit, he would however contend that the original purchase of the vendor, Selvaraj, who sold the property to the petitioner’s father was on 24.10.1994, which was admittedly prior to the filing of the suit for partition in O.S.No.473 of 1994 on 22.12.1994.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further state that without seeking for a declaration, questioning the alienation by Kandasamy Gounder in favour of Selvaraj, the plaintiff could not have maintained the suit for partition. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the decisions of this Court in Venkusah Vs. Baskaran and others, reported in 2019 SCC Online Mad 39255, Amsavalli and another Vs. Selvi and others, reported in 2026 MHC 2494 and Senthil Kumar and another Vs. Jeyabal and others, in S.A.No.250 of 2005 dated 15.11.2011.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would firstly contend that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts and that they have not brought to the notice of neither the Executing Court, nor this Court that the father of the petitioner had himself filed similar Section 47 application, which came to be dismissed. He would therefore contend that the present application under Section 47 is clearly barred and the malafide conduct of the petitioner cannot be condoned. It is their further submission that the prayer sought for in the Section 47 application is seeking to set aside the decree passed in O.S.No.473 of 1994, which cannot be maintained in a Section 47 application and that for such relief, the proper course of remedy would be only to prefer a regular statutory appeal under Section 96 of CPC.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the evidence adduced by the petitioner in the course of enquiry in the Section 47 application, where the petitioner categorically admits to the fact that his father had filed a Section 47 application and that it was dismissed and that the said order has become final. Further, they also point out to the petitioner’s admission that it was only pending the Section 47 application filed by the petitioner’s father that the settlement deed came to be executed in the name of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petitions.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the decisions that have been relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

9. The primordial submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that when the petitioner claims and traces title to an antecedent document dated 24.10.1994 and admittedly, the same is prior to the filing of the suit on 22.12.1994, seeking partition, the suit could not have been maintained, without challenging the sale by Kandasamy Gounder in favour of Selvaraj, under whom the petitioner now claims title and interest.

10. There is no quarrel with regard to the ratio laid down in the decisions that have been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, all these decisions were rendered in second appeals, where the issue of non challenge to the alienation made prior to the institution of the suit for partition, was raised and decided. However, in the present case, admittedly, the said issue has not been agitated before the Trial Court or by preferring any appeal before the appellate Courts. In such view of the matter, I am unable to see how the petitioner can, in execution proceedings, take up this issue and question the maintainability of the suit without a relief of declaration, challenging the sale deed in favour of Selvaraj, which according to the revision petitioner, is prior to the institution of the suit itself.

11. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner himself has deposed in evidence that the settlement deed in his favour was only pending the application filed by his father under Section 47 of CPC. Moreover, the petitioner has not mentioned or whispered about the attempt made by his father to challenge the executability of the decree. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme in Jini Dhanrajgir and another Vs. Shibu Mathew and another, reported in (2023) 20 SCC 76, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 47 of CPC mandates the Court executing the decree to determine all questions arising between the parties to the suit or their representatives in relation to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree and also reiterated that even where resistance is offered or obstruction is raised, impeding due execution of the decree, then also due enquiry will have to be conducted under Rules 97 and 98 r/w 101 of Order XXI of CPC and inter se claims will have to be adjudicated.

12. However, this is not a case where the petitioner’s Section 47 application has been dismissed as not maintainable. He has been permitted to lead evidence and he has also entered the witness box and adduced evidence. The Executing Court has rightly gone into the contentions raised by the revision petitioner and found that the settlement in his favour executed by his father was only pending an application filed by the father under Section 47 of CPC. Admittedly, the said Section 47 application was dismissed for non prosecution and thereafter, the same has not been restored to file. Suppressing the same, the petitioner has filed an independent Section 47 application to agitate his rights. When the petitioner’s settlement is admittedly pending the lis, that too, pending an application challenging the executability of the decree filed by his own father and the said application was subsequently dismissed, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts. This also has been taken note of by the executing Court while proceeding to dismiss the Section 47 application.

13. As regards the omission to challenge the alienation prior to the filing of the suit, this ground would only be available to be taken in the suit or in an appeal from the judgment of the trial Court and cannot be raised in execution proceedings, that too, by way of a Section 47 application, where the questions that can be determined by the Executing Court, are particularly limited to execution, satisfaction and discharge of the decree already passed and nothing more. Therefore, the grounds raised in the Section 47 application are beyond the scope of enquiry as contemplated under Section 47 of CPC.

14. Further, even the prayer sought for is not properly framed, as the petitioner seeks to set aside the decree passed in the suit, which cannot be done by the Executing Court. In such circumstances, I do not find any error committed by the Executing Court in dismissing the Section 47 application. The trial Court has adduced proper reasons for refusing to entertain the Section 47 application and no interference is warranted in CRP.No.5669 of 2025. Consequently, the other two revisions, namely CRP.Nos.425 & 426 of 2026, which arise only out of interlocutory orders passed in the Section 47 application, are also liable to be dismissed.

15. In fine, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 09.10.2026 Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No ata

P.B.BALAJI.

J, ata To The District Munsif Court, Dharapuram. Pre-delivery order made in CRP.Nos.5669 of 2025, 425 & 426 of 2026 09.10.2026