Madras High Court
CRP/6508/2026 of S.A.Ramalingam(Died),1.Dhanasekaran Vs Elumalai on 9 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP Nos. 6508, 6509, 6510 and 6511 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012383982026}
and CMP Nos.28049 of 2026
S.A.Ramalingam(Died),
1. 1.Dhanasekaran, S/o. Late S.A.Ramalingam, Vanniyar Street, Singipuram Post, Valappady Taluk, Salem District.
2. Anandhanayaki, D/o. S.A.Ramalingam,
W/o. Jayaraman, Pudupalayam Post,
Valappady Taluk, Salem District
3. Rajeswari, D/o. Late S.A.Ramalingam
W/o. Kathiravan, Vanniyar Street,
Singipuram Post, Valappady Taluk,
Salem District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Elumalai, S/o. late Ramasamy Padayachi, Sendrayampalayam Village and Post, Valappady Taluk, Salem District.
2. Arunachalam, S/o. Late S.A.Ramalingam, Vanniyar Street, Singipuram Post, Valappady Taluk, Salem District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer in CRP No.6508 of 2026: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the order and decreetal order, dated 22-08-2026 passed in REA.No.11/2021 in EP.No.9/2017 in O.S.NO.887/1995 by the file of the Judicial Magistrate-Cum-District Munsif Court, Valappady Salem.
__________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )
CRP Nos. 6508,6509, 6510 and 6511 of 2026
Prayer in CRP No.6509 of 2026: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the order and decreetal order, dated 22-08-2026 passed in REA No.1 of 2026 in REA.No.11/2021 in EP.No.9/2017 in O.S.NO.887/1995 by the file of the Judicial Magistrate-Cum-District Munsif Court, Valappady Salem.
Prayer in CRP No.6510 of 2026: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the order and decreetal order, dated 22-08-2026 passed in REA No.3 of 2026 in REA.No.11/2021 in EP.No.9/2017 in O.S.NO.887/1995 by the file of the Judicial Magistrate-Cum-District Munsif Court, Valappady Salem.
Prayer in CRP No.6511 of 2026: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the order and decreetal order, dated 22-08-2026 passed in REA No.2 of 2026 in REA.No.11/2021 in EP.No.9/2017 in O.S.NO.887/1995 by the file of the Judicial Magistrate-Cum-District Munsif Court, Valappady Salem.
In all Civil Revision Petition
For Petitioner(s):
Ms. R.Poornima
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Ezhilarasan
takes notice for R1
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER
CRP No.6508 of 2026 has been filed, challenging the order passed by the Executing Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors under Section 47 of CPC. __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )
CRP Nos. 6508,6509, 6510 and 6511 of 2026
2. CRP No.6509, 6510 and 6511 of 2026 have been filed challenging the orders passed by the Executing Court, dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners seeking to re-open the case, re-call PW1 and to receive reply counter.
3. It is not in dispute that the first respondent/plaintiff herein obtained a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the petitioners and the said decree was put into execution in R.E.P.No.9 of 2017. The petitioner filed an application in REA No.11 of 2020 under Section 47 of CPC seeking declaration that the decree passed in the original suit is in-executable one. According to the petitioners, the suit was barred by limitation as it was not filed within 20 years from the date of issuance of legal notice by the mother of the 1st petitioner/plaintiff. Further, it was claimed by the petitioners that they perfected title by adverse possession and therefore, the decree obtained by the first respondent/ plaintiff could not be executable.
4. Subsequently, when the said application under Section 47 of CPC was posted for arguments, the petitioners have filed another three applications to reopen the case, recall PW1 and to receive reply counter. By impugned order, the application under Section 47 of CPC and as well as the above said three applications were dismissed by the executing court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present civil revision petitions. __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )
CRP Nos. 6508,6509, 6510 and 6511 of 2026
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and therefore, the decree obtained by the first respondent/plaintiff cannot be executed. He would further submit that the petitioners have been in possession of the property for five decades and therefore, they perfected title by adverse possession. Therefore, according to him the first respondent is not entilted to get possession of the property.
6. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the plea of limitation was raised by the petitioner, even before the trial court and with regard to the plea of limitation, Additional Issue No.2 was framed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court, at the time of final disposal held that the suit has been filed within the limitation and answered the issue against the petitioners. The findings rendered by the Trial Court has been confirmed up to the second appeal by this court. Thereafter, execution petition has been filed by the first respondent for executing the decree for recovery of possession. When the question of limitation was found against the petitioners in the suit, they are not entitled to raise it again in the Section 47 application.
7. As far as the adverse possession is concerned, the first respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plea of adverse possession should have been raised by the defendant in the __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )
CRP Nos. 6508,6509, 6510 and 6511 of 2026 main suit itself as a defence and he had ample opportunity to raise such issue and to lead evidence. Though the suit was contested on various grounds by the defendant, the issue of adverse possession had not been raised by him. Admittedly, the petitioners, the legal heirs of the sole defendant were impleaded as parties only in the execution petition. When the original defendant failed to raise the issue of adverse possession before the Trial Court, now, the petitioners who are claiming under original defendant, are not entitled to raise such issue in an application under Section 47 of CPC. The said plea is barred by constructive res judicata, in view of explanation IV of Section 11 of CPC. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court and hence, CRP No.6508 of 2026 is liable to be dismissed.
8. It is the further case of the petitioners that first respondent/plaintiff was known not only by the name Elumali but also by the name of R.Varadharaja and at the time of admission into the 6th Standard, in the school records, his date of birth was mentioned as 16.03.1974 and the Transfer Certificate issued by the School was also duly produced before the Trial Court and the same has been marked as Ex.B50. Notwithstanding the same, the Trial Court failed to take into consideration the said document. Therefore, according to the petitioners, in order to raise all these pleas, they wanted to file reply statement in the Section 47 application and wanted to re-open the case to lead further evidence. __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )
CRP Nos. 6508,6509, 6510 and 6511 of 2026
9. As mentioner earlier, the plea of limitation raised by the petitioners has already been found against them. Further, the Trial Court, in the suit in O.S.No.887 of 1995, while answering Additional Issue No.1, rendered findings that the Date of Birth of the first respondent/plaintiff was 08.05.1976. and the said findings attained finality, as confirmed by this court in the Second Appeal. The points which have been already decided by the Trial Court cannot be re- opened and re-agitated in the Section 47 application. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the petitioners to reopen the case, recall PW1 and to lead further evidence are not acceptable to this court and the executing court has rightly appreciated the above said facts and dismissed all the applications. I do not find any error in the impugned orders passed by the Executing Court.
10. Accordingly, CRP Nos.6508, 6509, 6510 and 6511 of 2026 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )
CRP Nos. 6508,6509, 6510 and 6511 of 2026 To The Judicial Magistrate cum District Munsif, Valappady, Salem. __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )
CRP Nos. 6508,6509, 6510 and 6511 of 2026 S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP Nos. 6508, 6509, 6510 and 6511of 2026 09-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )