✦ High Court of India · 13 Jun 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 13 Jun 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

13 Jun 2025

Bench

N. SATHISH KUMAR

Length

1,009 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure §115 Code of Civil Procedure

C.R.P.Nos.789 & 895 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 13.06.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMARC.R.P.Nos.789 & 895 of 2025andC.M.P.Nos.4626 & 5220 of 2025Y.Saleem Sait ... Petitionerin both petitionsVs.1.M.Ashok Chand2.M.Dharam Chand3.M.Jai Chand4.M.Vijai ChandK.Bujanga Rao (deceased)5.Sumathi B.Rao6.Ahameed Sheriff7.Narayandass8.Ganeshan9.Fazil10.A.K.Chinnaiah11.A.S.Azam12.Shafiyulla Khan13.A.S.Nurullah14.A.S.AbdulGani15.A.S.KurseethRahima Bi (deceased)16.A.S.Mohammed Zafarullah Khan17.RadhakrishnanRagavendra Rao (deceased)18.JayalakshmiPage 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.789 & 895 of 202519.Bhargavi20.Sriram21.Srikrishna22.S.Kanthilal23.S.Lalithkumar24.S.Mahaveerchand25.S.Balchand ... Respondentsin C.R.P.No.789 of 20251.M.Ashok Chand2.M.Dharam Chand3.M.Jai Chand4.M.Vijay ChandS.Mothilal (since deceased)B.F.Leelabai (since deceased)5.M.PushpalathaK.Bujanga Rao (deceased)6.Sumathi B.Rao7.Narayandass8.Ganeshan9.Fyzil10.A.K.Chinnaiah11.A.S.Azam12.A.S.Anwar13.Shafiyulla Khan14.A.S.Abdul Gani15.A.S.Kursheeth16.A.S.Mohammed ZafarullahRahima Bi (since deceased)Ragavendra Rao (since deceased)17.R.Kumar18.Arun Singh19.Sri Balaji20.P.SamuelM.A.Jayraj (since deceased)Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.789 & 895 of 202521.Messrs Heeramul Garden Road, Udhagamandalam.22.Dr.Ravi Thilagaraj 23.Mani Achari24.Bhojan25.Radhakrishnan26.Jayalakshmi27.Bhargavi28.Sri Ram29.Sri Krishna30.S.Kanthilal31.S.Lalithkumar32.S.Mahaveerchand33.S.BalchandAsi Bai (since deceased)34.Kamma Bai35.Magha Bai36.Kamala Bai37.S.Shanthilal38.Bhagya Shree39.J.Mohan40.Mini41.J.Sheele42.J.Sumi ... Respondentsin C.R.P.No.895 of 2025Prayer in C.R.P.No.789 of 2025 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decretal order dated 27.09.2024 in E.A.No.1 of 2023 in E.P.No.42 of 2014 on the file of the Rent Controller, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District.Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.789 & 895 of 2025Prayer in C.R.P.No.895 of 2025 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decretal order dated 27.09.2024 in E.A.No.2 of 2023 in E.P.No.43 of 2014 in R.C.O.P.No.34 of 1990 on the file of the Rent Controller, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District.For Petitioner: Mr.S.Shanmugasundaram for M/s.R.Muruga Bharathi in both petitionsFor R1 and R2: Mr.Vishnu Manoharan for Mr.Vishnu Mohan in both petitionsFor R22 and R23: Mr.P.Prithivi Chopda in C.R.P.No.789 of 2025For R30 and R31 : Mr.P.Prithivi Chopda in C.R.P.No.895 of 2025C O M M O N O R D E RChallenging the orders of the Execution Court dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, these revision petitions have been filed. Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.789 & 895 of 20252.The rent control proceedings have been originally filed by the landlords in R.C.O.P.Nos.249 of 1984 and 34 of 1990 against various tenants. Those matters reached finality in favour of the landlords and eviction has been ordered against the tenants and sub-tenants, etc. The Execution Petitions in E.P.Nos.42 of 2014 and 43 of 2014 have been filed by the landlords to evict the tenants. 3.When the matter stood thus, the present applications have been taken out by the revision petitioner in E.A.No.1 of 2023 in E.P.No.42 of 2014 and E.A.No.2 of 2023 in E.P.No.43 of 2014 under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. It is the contention of the petitioner that, originally, the properties were purchased by the petitioners' paternal grandfather Ghulam Hussain Ayub Sait in the year 1929. After his death in the year 1949, the properties devolved upon his legal heirs. However, the Municipality of Ooty filed a suit in O.S.No.177 of 1974 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ootacamund, for recovery of arrears of Property Tax, against one Fathima Bibi, posing her as the wife of the petitioner's grandfather. The said suit has been decreed and in the execution, the properties were put to auction. Thereafter, one Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.789 & 895 of 2025Simrathmull purchased the properties in public auction. It is his contention that Fathima Bibi, who is said to be the wife of the petitioner's paternal grandfather, is not his legal heir and the other original legal heirs were not impleaded in the suit. Accordingly, it is his contention that he has a right in the property. The said applications were opposed by the landlords. 4.The Execution Court has clearly considered the entire facts and dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner. Challenging the orders of dismissal, the present revision petitions have been filed.5.Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has a right in the property and therefore, his right has to be agitated before the Execution Court under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. 6.It is relevant to note that the petitioner is a third party to the proceedings. The proceedings for eviction was initiated in the year 1990 and for more than four decades, the petitioner was sleeping. When delivery order was about to be passed against the tenants in the execution proceedings, the present applications have been filed by the revision Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.789 & 895 of 2025petitioner claiming that the property originally belongs to his paternal grandfather who had purchased the property in the year 1929. According to him, one Fathima Bibi, against whom the suit has been filed, is not the wife of his paternal grandfather. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner is trying to establish his title at this stage, that too, in the execution petition filed for eviction of tenants. This Court is of the view that the applications are nothing but an abuse of process of law in order to somehow thwart the execution. 7.The rent control proceedings have been filed by the purchaser of the property in the year 1990 and now, atleast 35 years have gone by. At this stage, one cannot claim that he has a right in the property. Even assuming that the petitioner had any right, by operation of law and time, the same has got extinguished. Therefore, at this stage, one cannot lay a claim to agitate his right under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. As rightly pointed out by the Execution Court, still if the petitioner claims that he has any right, it is for him to establish the same in the manner known to law. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of the Execution Court dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner.Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.789 & 895 of 20258.Therefore, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.13.06.2025mknNote : Issue order copy on 19.06.2025.Internet: Yes Index : Yes / NoSpeaking order / Nonspeaking orderNeutral Citation : Yes / NoTo1.The Rent Controller, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District.2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai.Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.789 & 895 of 2025N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.mknC.R.P.Nos.789 & 895 of 202513.06.2025Page 9 of 9

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Code of Civil Procedure