Madras High Court
CRP/4561/2026 of T.Saranya Vs Neithavoyal Chettiar Thanneer Pandal (Charity) on 29 September 2026
CRP No. 4561 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 4561 of 2026
& CMP.No.20043 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011621512026}
T.Saranya
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Neithavoyal Chettiar Thanneer Pandal (Charity)
Rep by its Sole Trustee. T. Mohanasundaram Chettiar, Plot No.97, Ambal Nagar, 2nd St, Keelkattalai, Chennai 117.
..Respondent(s)
To direct the District Munsif Court, Ponneri to entertain the section 47 CPC application, filed in EA Sr.No.3304/2026 filed in EP No.19 of 2018 in OS No.117 of 2010 and decide on merits and allow the CRP.
For Petitioner(s):
M/S. S.Udhaya Kumar
For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Yoganantham
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.
ORDER
The matter is listed today under the caption ‘for being mentioned’ at the instance of the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is a typographical error occurred in cause title and at paragraph No.2 of
( Uploaded on: 30/09/2026 07:27:52 pm )
CRP No. 4561 of 2026
the order dated 11.09.2026 in CRP.No.4561 of 2026, that the name of the counsel for the respondent has been inadvertently typed as Mr.S.Loganathan for M/s.Vinayaga Perumal instead of Mr.S.Yoganantham. Hence, he seeks suitable correction in the said order.
3. Considering the above, Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction, by incorporating the correct name of the counsel for the respondent, as indicated above, in the order dated 11.09.2026 and issue a fresh order copy to the parties. 29-09-2026 ATA
( Uploaded on: 30/09/2026 07:27:52 pm )
CRP No. 4561 of 2026
P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No. 4561 of 2026 29-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 30/09/2026 07:27:52 pm )
CRP No. 4561 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP No.4561 of 2026 & CMP.No.20043 of 2026 T.Saranya ..Petitioner Vs Neithavoyal Chettiar Thanneer Pandal (Charity), Represented by its Sole Trustee T.Mohanasundaram Chettiar, Plot No.97, Ambal Nagar, 2nd Street, Keelkattalai, Chennai – 600 117. ..Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, direct the District Munsif Court, Ponneri, to entertain the Section 47 application filed in E.A.SR.No.3304 of 2026 in E.P.No.19 of 2018 in O.S.No.117 of 2010. For Petitioner: For Respondent: Mr.S.Udhaya Kumar Mr.S.Loganathan for M/s.Vinayaga Perumal
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor, challenging the dismissal of her application filed under Section 47 of CPC, even at the SR stage.
( Uploaded on: 30/09/2026 07:27:52 pm )
CRP No. 4561 of 2026
2. I have heard Mr.S.Udhaya Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.Loganathan, for Mr.Vinayaga Perumal, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the Executing Court failed to see the valid objection taken by the petitioner that the decreetal property did not belong to the respondent-decree holder in the first place and has erroneously refused to entertain the Section 47 application. He would invite my attention to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16437 of 2024 and contend that this Court has clearly held that the property belongs to the Government and therefore, the respondent could not have executed the decree for recovery of possession. It is therefore stated that if the suit property did not belong to the decree holder, then the decree holder cannot maintain the execution petition and seek for execution of the decree.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would state that the Executing Court has rightly dismissed the Section 47 application as not maintainable, finding that the property admittedly belongs to the respondent/Trust and it is only the management of the Trust that has been handed over to a fit person and nothing more. He would therefore state that the petitioner, who is only a tenant under the respondent, cannot set up the plea in a Section 47 petition that the property does not belong to the decree holder and
( Uploaded on: 30/09/2026 07:27:52 pm )
CRP No. 4561 of 2026
thereby attempt to derail the execution proceedings.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16437 of 2024. In fact, that was a writ petition filed by the respondent against the State and revenue authorities.
6. This Court did not declare that the suit property does not belong to the writ petitioner, on the contrary, this Court only found that in view of mismanagement of the Trust, a fit person had been appointed, pursuant to an order in W.P.No.21533 of 2017 dated 06.09.2022 and the management of the Trust has been brought under the control of the HR & CE Department. There is no finding rendered by the writ Court that the suit property does not belong to the respondent.
7. Even otherwise the petitioner admittedly is a tenant, who was inducted by the respondent and is therefore estopped from questioning the title of the respondent. In view of the express bar, it is not open to the petitioner to maintain a Section 47 application and to now question the title of the respondent under whom he came into possession. In such view of the matter, I do not find any error committed by the Executing Court in not entertaining the Section 47 application. There is no merit in the revision petition.
( Uploaded on: 30/09/2026 07:27:52 pm )
CRP No. 4561 of 2026
8. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. At the time of delivering the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for some reasonable time to enable the petitioner to vacate and hand over vacant possession to the decree holder. Considering that the petitioner has been in occupation for the past several decades, I am inclined to grant six months time to the petitioner to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the decreetal property, subject to the petitioner filing an affidavit of undertaking, within a period of one week from the date of copy of this order being uploaded in the High Court website, that she would vacate the tenanted premises within a period of six months and also undertaking to pay the entire arrears of rent payable to the decree holder, within a period of four weeks from the date of the order being uploaded in the High Court website. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 11.09.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To The District Munsif Court, Ponneri.
( Uploaded on: 30/09/2026 07:27:52 pm )
CRP No. 4561 of 2026
P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No.4561 of 2026 11.09.2026
( Uploaded on: 30/09/2026 07:27:52 pm )