CRP/3005/2026 of V.Gowri Vs Kempammal on 22 September 2026

ORDER

The revision petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction available under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to strike off the proceedings in E.P.No.138 of 2014 in O.S.No.124 of 2006.

2. I heard Mr.C.Umashankar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.N.Damodharan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

3. The case of the revision petitioners is that they are legal heirs of one R.Venkatesan, who died on 18.02.2020. The said R.Venkatesan was born to one Ramasamy whose sister was one Janaki Ammal. The said Janakiammal was married to Sundara Rajan, who died on 15.10.1999. Janakiammal subsequently died on 02.06.2003. The said Janakiammal and Sundara Rajan had two sons, Purushothaman and Gopala Krishnan, who died as bachelors on 12.02.1995 and 10.02.2006 respectively.

4. According to the petitioners, the suit property belonged to the said Janaki Ammal, who had purchased it, in and by a registered sale deed dated 19.05.1971. Janakiammal lived in the said property, along with her sons Purushothaman and Gopala Krishnan. Gopala Krishnan later died on 10.02.2006. While so, the Court Bailiff visited the suit property and informed the petitioners that Janakiammal and Sundara Rajan had suffered a decree and execution proceedings had been instituted against them. The petitioners approached a lawyer and verified the Court records and came to know that a fraud had been played upon the Court. The petitioners applied for certified copies and found that O.S.No.124 of 2006 had been filed on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore, and based on the decree in the said suit, execution proceedings were initiated. The petitioners attempted to implead themselves in the said execution petition, by filing EA.SR.No.20637 of 2025, but however, the Sub Court, Coimbatore, by order dated 15.10.2025, rejected the said impleading application. The execution petition was also ordered and sale certificate was issued on 29.01.2026 in favour of the auction purchaser and on 29.01.2026, EP was also closed.

5. According to the petitioners, though they applied for certified copies of the sales certificate, the Registry has not issued the same. The petitioners have also given an objection letter to the Tashildar, Annur, Coimbatore District, besides also moving this Court in W.P.No.46932 of 2025 for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the official respondents to consider their representation dated 14.08.2025, seeking cancellation of a bogus legal heirship certificate obtained by one Saroja. The writ petition was disposed of on 04.12.2025, with a direction to the petitioners to file an appropriate declaratory relief before the competent civil Court.

6. According to Mr.C.Umashankar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Saroja is a fictitious person and none entered appearance in the execution proceedings and the entire process of issuing the sale certificate has been fraudulent and mischievous. Further, according to Mr.C.Umashankar, the petitioners are the actual legal heirs, who are, in fact, admittedly in physical possession of the suit property and in such circumstances, the Executing Court ought not to have denied them a fair opportunity to contest the execution proceedings. He would further state that though the sale certificate has been issued and the EP has been terminated, the petitioners admittedly continue to be in physical possession and the auction purchaser is taking feverish steps to dispossess the petitioners, without following the due process of law.

7. Per contra, Mr.N.Damodharan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would state that the petitioners are yet to be declared as the actual legal representatives, entitled to share in the suit properly and that is the reason why this Court also did not grant relief in the writ petition filed by them. He would further state that the EP has already been terminated and hence, the prayer itself has become infructuous and nothing survives for consideration. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on eithe side. I have also gone through the material records that have been placed before me by way of typed set of papers.

9. The petitioners, by production of acceptable, prima facie documentary evidence, are able to establish that Saroja was never the legal representative of Gopala Krishnan, who in fact died as a bachelor. Curiously, one Saroja has been impleaded, as if she is the wife of Gopala Krishnan and none entered appearance to contest the proceedings, including the execution proceedings. Ex- parte orders were obtained, based on which sale certificate was also issued by the Court and consequently, the execution proceedings have been terminated. The petitioners, by overwhelming documentary evidence, have established that they are in physical possession of the suit property. There is nothing brought on record by the respondents to establish that they have taken physical possession of the suit property. Therefore, if at all the auction purchaser is interested to recover physical possession of the property that has been purchased by him in Court auction, then the petitioners are very well entitled to contest the proceedings by obstructing to the request for delivery of possession of the suit property in favour of the auction purchaser.

10. Order XXI Rule 97 of C.P.C provides for such mode of enquiry, where the grievances of the petitioners as obstructors can be ventilated in a manner known to law. In such view of the matter, without going into merits and demerits of the claims and counter claims of the petitioners and the respondents, leaving it open to the parties to agitate all issues in the Executing Court, I am inclined to dispose of the revision petition.

11. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, by reopening E.P.No.138 of 2014 and it shall be open to the petitioners or to the auction purchaser to file an application under XXI Rule 97 of CPC, for noting obstructions/removal of obstruction as the case may be. The parsties shall be afforded a fair opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence in the said application and thereafter, the Executing Court shall decide the objections of the revision petitioners, in a manner known to law. It is needless to state that in the event of the petitioners establishing their valid objections, then the sales certificate will have no binding effect on the petitioners and on the contrary, if the petitioners fail to establish their objections and the auction purchaser succeeds in dislodging the objections put forth by the petitioners, then the sales certificate would clearly bind the petitioners and consequently, the petitioners would be liable to vacate and hand over vacant possession. Such application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC

shall be filed either by the petitioners or by the 2nd respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Executing Court, after providing an opportunity to file counter to such application, within a period of three weeks thereafter, shall conduct due enquiry and dispose of the application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC, on or before 30.04.2027. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 22-09-2026 ATA To The Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No. 3005 of 2026 22-09-2026