Madras High Court
CRP/2895/2023 of Kanniappan (DIED) Vs Angamuthu on 8 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 2895 of 2023
AND
CMP NO. 17930 OF 2023
Kanniappan (DIED)
Thangavelu (Died), Palaniappan (Died),
Alagammal (Died)
1. Panneer, S/o.Late Palaniappan, Kamachiamman Kovil Veedhi, 4th Cross, Muthaliyar Veedhi, Loganathapuram, Sundarapuram Post, Coimbatore 641 024.
2. Geethamani
W/o.Chandrasean, Muthupar Kovil Veedhi,
Kurichi, Sundarapuram Post,
Coimbatore 641 024.
3. Venkatachalapathi
S/o.Alagammal Kaliannan, Muthupar Kovil
Veedhi, Kurichi, Sundarapuram Post,
Coimbatore 641 024.
4. Chandrasean
S/o.M.Thangavelu, Muniappan Kovil Veedhi, Kurichi, Sundarapuram Post, Coimbatore.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Angamuthu
S/o.Nallasamy, D.No.31, Muniappa Kovil
Veedhi, Kurichi Village, Coimbatore.
2. Rathinammal
W/o.Late Ponnusamy, 3/13, Muniappan Kovil Veedhi, Sundarapuram, Kurichi Coimbatore.
Maliga (Died)
Chandrasekar (Died)
Bhagyam (Died)
3. Kalamani
W/o.R.Ranganathan, 85, Krishnapuram,
Coonoor-2. The Nilgiris.
4. Mala
W/o.Sekar, No.143-B, Mariamman Kovil
Veedhi, Gandhiji Road, Kurichi, Sundarapuram Post, Coimbatore 641024.
5. Manjula
W/o.Sivalingam. No.10, Lakshmi Nagar,
Goundampalayam Road, Edyarpalayam
Coimbatore.
6. Kowalya
W/o.Govindaraju, No.34/54, kalaivanar St, Kattoor Road, Pollachi.
7. Vathsala
W/o.Krishnan, No.5/10, Muniappan Kovil
Veedhi, Kurichi, Sundarapuram Post,
Coimbatore 641 024.
8. Perma
W/o.Ganesan, Muthupar Kovil St, Kurichi, Sundarapuram Post, Coimbatore 641 024.
9. Masilamani
S/o.Alagammal Kalianna, No.16-A, Muthaliyar Veedhi, Loganathapuram, Sundarapuram Post, Coimbatore 641 024.
10.Malathi
W/o.Ganesan, NO.23/123, Muthaliyar Veedhi, Loganathapuram, Sundarapuram Post, Coimbatore 641 024.
11.Karpagam
W/o.Elango, 5/336, Kennedy Veedhi,
Naickenpalayam Village and Post,
Coimbatore 641 020.
12.Keerathana
W/o.K.Dineshkumar, 3/73, Gandhiji Road,
Kurichi, Sundarapuram Post,
Coimbatore 641 024.
13.Sakthi Murugan
S/o.O.M.Arumugam, 64/73-A1, Muthaliyar
Veedhi, Muthaiah Nagar, Sundarapuram Post, Coimbatore 641 024.
14.Suriyakumar
S/o.M.Thangavelu, Muniappan Kovil Veedhi, Kurichi, Sundarapuram Post, Coimbatore 641 024.
15.Valliammal
D/o.M.Thangavelu, W/o.Rajamani, Muniappan Kovil Veedhi, Kurichi, Sundarapuram Post, Coimbatore 641 024.
16.Nagajothi
D/o.M.Thangavelu, W/o.Kumaresan, 52,
Muthaliyar Veedhi, Loganathapuram,
Sundarapuram Post, Coimbatore 641 024.
17.Ganesamoorthy
S/o.Late Chandrasekaran, 14, Thiyagi Kumaran Veedhi, Ganapathy Post, Coimbatore 641 006.
18.Santhanam
S/o.Late Chandrasekaran, 14, Thiyagi
Kumaresan Veedhi, Ganapathy Post,
Coimbatore 641 006.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the CPC, to set aside the Fair and Final Order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the Learned Principal District Munsiff, Coimbatore in EP.No. 71 of 2007 in OS.No. 397 of
1980.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.L.Mouli
For Respondent(s):
Mr.C.R.Prasannan,
M/s.A.Kundavai for R1
Notice Dispensed with
R2, R4, R6, R8 to R14, R16 to R18
No Appearance for R3, R5, R7 & 15
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 Judgment Debtors are the revision petitioners.
2. I have heard Mr.L.Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.C.R.Prasannan, learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders.
3. The challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by the Executing Court on the sole ground that the decree for mandatory injunction cannot be executed beyond the statutory period of limitation fixed under Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which is a period of three years. Mr.L.Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the Executing Court failed to see that the decree that has been granted is only a decree for mandatory injunction simpliciter without any prohibitory injunction or permanent injunction being granted. He would therefore state that Article 135 of the Limitation Act would apply in full force to the facts of the present case and admittedly, the Execution Petition has been filed beyond the statutory period of three years, and the Executing Court clearly erred in entertaining the Execution Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr.C.R.Prasannan, would however bring to my notice that the decree is not for mandatory injunction simplicitor but also for permanent injunction and relying on the ratio laid down by this Court in M.A.Raja Vs. S.Vedantham Pillai and 4 others, reported in 2000
(2) CTC 199 and Sargunam Vs. Duraisamy, reported in 2002 (2) MLJ 746, Mr.C.R.Prasannan, learned counsel would contend that the Executing Court has rightly held that the Execution Petition to be maintainable and in time, since the decree is also for permanent injunction and it is only Article 136 that would apply and not Article 135. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
6. The short point that requires to be considered is as to whether the decree in favour of the respondents/decree holders is only for a mandatory injunction or for both permanent as well as mandatory injunction. The answer to this question would decide the fate of the revision petition. The law is well settled that if it is merely a decree for mandatory injunction, then, Article 135 of the Limitation Act alone would apply and the Execution Petition will have to be filed within a period of three years. However, if the decree is for permanent injunction as well, apart from the relief of mandatory injunction being granted, then Article 136 of the Limitation Act alone would apply and not Article 135 of the Limitation Act. In terms of Article 136 Limitation Act, the period of limitation for filing Execution Petitions is 12 years. In this regard, I have examined the decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.397 of 1980, by judgment and decree dated 30.10.1982.
8. The decree clearly grants not only a mandatory injunction but also a permanent injunction. The reference to the decree being granted only for mandatory injunction is based on reference made by Mr.Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioner to the judgment in O.S.No.397 of 1970. In fact, the petitioner
P.B.BALAJI J. challenged the decree by filing A.S. No.224 of 1983 and the First Appellate Court, viz., I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and even in the judgment, the First Appellate Court clearly found that the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction and mandatory injunction as prayed for.
9. In view of the above, applying the ratio laid down by this Court in M.A.Raja and Sargunam's cases (referred herein supra), since the decree is also for permanent injunction, besides a mandatory injunction, it is only Article 136, which would come into play and therefore, when the Execution Petition has been filed within 12 years admittedly, the same is certainly maintainable and not barred by limitation and no error has been committed by the Executing Court.
10. In fine, this Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs. 08-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.
AND CMP NO. 17930 OF 2023