Madras High Court
CRP/5066/2025 of Aroquiame Louis Marie Joseph (Died), 1. Aroquiame Vs Marie Rozorio Arokianathan (Died), 1. Catherina Ar on 10 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 5066 of 2025
and CMP.No.25536 of 2025
1.Aroquiame Louis Marie Joseph (Died), 1.
Aroquiame Irudayamary
W/o. Late Aroquiame Louis Larie Joseph, No.231, Mission Street, Puducherry 605 001.
Rep. by Power Agent Aroquiame Amalor Julien (5th Petitioner).
2.Aroquiame Sagaya Andoniraj
S/o. Late Aroquiame Louis Larie Joseph, No.11, Rue De.I.a Justice Mauve, Appt 71, EME Etage 9500- Cergy, France.
Rep. by Power Agent Aroquiame Amalor Julien (5th Petitioner).
3.Aroquiame Cojandenadin
S/o. Late Aroquiame Louis Larie Joseph, No.11, Rue De.I.a Justice Mauve, Appt 71, EME Etage 9500- Cergy, France.
Rep. by Power Agent Aroquiame Amalor Julien (5th Petitioner).
4.Aroquiame Daniel
S/o. Late Aroquiame Louis Larie Joseph, No.11, Rue De.I.a Justice Mauve, Appt 71, EME Etage 9500- Cergy, France.
Rep. by Power Agent Aroquiame Amalor Julien (5th Petitioner).
5.Aroquiame Amalor Julien
S/o. Late Aroquiame Louis Larie Joseph, No.231, Mission Street, Puducherry 605 001.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.Marie Rozorio Arokianathan (Died), 1. Catherina Arokiamarie Theodare W/o Late Marie Rozorio Arokianathan, Res at No 10, 16th Cross Street, Krishna Nagar, Lawspet, Puducherry.
2.Nancy
D/o Late Marie Rozorio Arokianathan, Res at No 10, 16th Cross Street, Krishna Nagar, Lawspet, Puducherry.
Alexis Sandanasamy (Died), Antoinette Alexis (Died), Paul Alexis (Died).
3.Marie Josephine Alexis
Rep. by Power Agent Paulraj, S/o. T.S.
Arulanandam Pillai, No.16, Chellan Nagar, Puducherry.
Marie Joseph Aime (Died)
4.Anna Marie
D/o. Late. Paul Alexis, No.89, Canteen Street, Puducherry
5.Alexis Raja
S/o. Late Paul Alexis, Rep. by Power Agent Paulraj, S/o. T.S.Arulanandam Pillai, No.16, Chellan Nagar, Puducherry.
6.Alexis Basco
S/o. Late Paul Alexis, Rep. by Power Agent Paulraj, S/o. T.S.Arulanandam Pillai, No.16, Chellan Nagar, Puducherry.
7.Alexis Bruno
S/o. Late Paul Alexis, At present res. at France.
8.Alex Jegan
S/o. Late Paul Alexis, No.89, Canteen Street, Puducherry.
Philomina Alexis (Died)
9.Marie Louis Zeenath
10.Youvan Christina Arokiamary
11.Marie Joseph Alphonse
12.Marie Louis Pragasam
13.Stella Marie
14.Muthu Sagayaraj
15.Susaiammal Seline
16.Aroliamarie Jasintha
17.James Irudayaraj
...Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, pleased to set aside the fair order dated 02.07.2025 and decreetal order dated 04.07.2025 in E.A.No.10 of 2025 in E.P.No.111 of 2003 in O.S.No.382 of 1971 on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge at Puducherry and allow the
C.R.P. and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.R.Sunilkumar
For Respondent(s):
Mr.V.Kamala Kumar
for R1 & R2
Not ready in notice for R3 to R9
Mr.Santhanamari for R10
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 revision petitioners are the decree holders who filed an Execution Petition to recover the amount due and payable to them under final decree proceedings, which culminated pursuant to a consent order dated 07.03.1986 passed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3366 of 1984.
2. Admittedly, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.1.4 crores. The respondents 1 and 2 represent one branch. According to the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, the respondents 1 and 2, have paid their one third share of the total amount due and payable to the petitioners and despite the same, the petitioners want to proceed against the property that belongs exclusively to the respondents 1 and 2.
3. Mr.R.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the decree is a joint and several decree, and it is not open to the respondents 1 and 2 to contend that they are not liable in respect of the remaining two third claim, which still remains unsatisfied.
4. Admittedly, a compromise was reached before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in terms of the compromise, the mesne profits were directed to be worked out in the final decree proceedings. It is admitted by Mr.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that, insofar as the respondents 1 and 2 are concerned, their entitlement has been duly paid. However, it is his submission that the decree being joint and several, it is not open to the respondents 1 and 2 to contend that they are not liable to meet the remaining two-thirds, and therefore his argument is that it is open to the decree holders to recover the money by proceeding against the property of the respondents 1 & 2 and thereafter it would be upon the shoulders of the respondents 1 and 2 to proceed against the remaining judgment debtors to get the amounts due and payable to them, reimbursed. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 contends that the decree is not joint and several and right the E.P has been dismissed.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and I have also gone through the order of the Executing Court. The learned Executing Court has found that the decree is not joint and several, and being a suit for partition, and specific shares being demarcated in the preliminary decree itself, it cannot be treated like a suit for recovery of money simpliciter, where a decree is granted jointly and severally against all the defendants.
6. I therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of the Executing Court holding that the decree can only be independently executed against the judgment debtors and it cannot be treated as a joint and several one. Mr.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners however states that the dismissal of the Execution petition should not foreclose the rights of the petitioners/decree holders to recover the amount due from the other two branches, leaving out the respondents 1 and 2, who have admittedly paid their share. Though the Executing Court has dismissed the Execution petition in toto, I find that the Execution Petition has been filed even as against the other two branches, though the properties are restricted only to the property belonging to the respondents 1 and 2. This Court makes it clear that the dismissal of the Execution petition shall not come in the way of the petitioners proceeding against the other two branches to recover the respective amounts due and payable at their end. Considering the passage of time, the Execution Proceedings is restored as against the respondents 3 to 17 and it shall be open to the revision petitioners to proceed against the individual assets of these respondents to recover the amounts due and payable to them. It is needless to say that the petitioners are at liberty to seek for amendment of the description of the property in the Execution Proceedings. Since in the present E.P. only the assets of the respondents 1 & 2 are set out.
7. With the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 10-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DPQ
P.B.BALAJI, J. DPQ CRP No. 5066 of 2025 10-08-2026