R.MYTHILI vs S.Rajasekar (Died) 1.SELVI
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRP(MD) No. 2848 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.DILIP KUMAR
CRP(MD) No. 2848 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011528502026}
AND
CRP(MD) NO. 2849 OF 2026,CMP(MD) NO. 14644 OF 2026
In C.R.P.(MD) No.2848 of 2026:-
R.Mythili
W/o.Late.J.Raju,
No.37,
Banadurai Sannathi Street,
Kumbakonam - 612 001.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
S.Rajasekar (Died)
1. Selvi
W/o.Late.S.Rajasekar
No. 16,
Sri Chakrapani Swami Koil North Madavilagam,
Kumbakonam
2. Pradeebha
No.40,
Vinayak Colony,
South Street,
Thiruvilandur,
Mayiladuthurai - 609 001
3. Vivek
No. 1/16,
Chakrapani Swami Kovil North Madavilagam,
Kumbakonam.
R.Bashiyam (died)
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:47:35 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2848 of 2026
4. Chandhirika
No. 14/5,
Chennai Salai,
Kumbakonam
5. Balaji
No. 14/5,
Chennai Salai,
Kumbakonam
6. Divya
No. 14/5,
Chennai Salai,
Kumbakonam
..Respondent(s)
CRP(MD) No. 2849 of 2026
R.Mythili
W/o.(Late) J. Raju
No.37,
Banadurai Sannathi Street,
Kumbakonam - 612 001
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
S.Rajasekar (Died)
1.Selvi
W/o.Late.S.Rajasekar,
No. 16,
Sri Chakrapani Swami Koil North Madavilagam,
Kumbakonam.
2. Pradeebha
No.40,
Vinayak Colony,
South Street,
Thiruvilandur,
Mayiladuthurai - 609 001
__________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:47:35 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2848 of 2026
3. Vivek
No. 1/16,
Chakrapani Swami Kovil North Madavilagam,
Kumbakonam
R.Bashyam (Died)
4. Chandhirika
No. 14/5,
Chennai Salai,
Kumbakonam
5. Balaji
No. 14/5,
Chennai Salai,
Kumbakonam
6. Divya
No. 14/5,
Chennai Salai,
Kumbakonam
..Respondent(s)
CRP(MD) No. 2848 of 2026
PRAYER: J-35. Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil
Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 01.10.2026
passed in E.A.No.129 of 2025 in E.A.No.61 of 2024 in E.P.No.84 of
2005 in O.S.No.78 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Subordinate
Court, Kumbakonam and thus render justice.
CRP(MD) No. 2849 of 2026
PRAYER: J-35. Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil
Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 01.10.2026
passed in E.A.No.130 of 2025 in E.A.No.61 of 2024 in E.P.No.84 of
2005 in O.S.No.78 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Subordinate
Court, Kumbakonam and thus render justice.
__________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:47:35 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2848 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Sankar
Order
These two Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by one Mythili
against the dismissal of her applications in E.A.No.129 of 2025 and
E.A.No.130 of 2025 filed respectively to reopen E.A.No.61 of 2024 and
to stay all further proceedings till the disposal of her E.A.No.129 of 2025.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
decree holder, Mr. Rajasekar, died on 05.10.2018 and upon his demise,
E.A.No.61 of 2024 was filed by Selvi, Pradeepa and Vivek claiming to be
the legal heirs of the deceased Rajasekar to the said execution
application. Despite stating that they have produced the legal heirship
certificate and the death certificate, they were not produced and by
mistake, the Executing Court had allowed that E.A.No.61 of 2024 on
05.04.2025. Pursuant to the allowing of the said EA.No.61 of 2024,
another E.A.No.70 of 2025 was filed by those 3 individuals to carry out
necessary amendments, which was also allowed on 25.06.2025.
__________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:47:35 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2848 of 2026
3.Claiming that this petitioner, namely Mythili, had purchased this
property on 07.04.1997, vide Doc.No.784 of 1997 and that she had not
been made a party to EA.No.61 of 2024 or E.A.No.70 of 2025 and
therefore, to expose the fraud played upon the Court by the said Selvi,
Pradeepa and Vivek the present petitioner, Mythili claims to have filed
E.A.No.129 of 2025 and the consequential EA.No.130 of 2025.
4.The learned counsel seeks to place reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in A.V.Papayya Sastry and Vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in CDJ 2007 SC 293 . He
would contend that the Executing Court in the impugned orders had
erroneously failed to consider the allegation of serious fraud leveled by
the petitioner against the three individuals namely Selvi, Pradeepa and
Vivek and he had misdirected itself by considering the date of passing of
the decree and the other past proceedings that were contested by the
petitioner. He accordingly prays for passing favorable orders.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
materials available on record.
__________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:47:35 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2848 of 2026
6.A civil suit in O.S.No.78 of 1991 was filed by Mr. Rajasekhar
against Mr. R Bhashyam for specific performance. The suit was decreed
th
in favor of Mr. Rajasekhar on 13 March 1995. The execution petition
filed by Mr. Rajasekhar, after being transferred across Courts, was finally
renumbered and taken on file in E.P.No.84 of 2005. In the said execution
petition, the present petitioner, Mythili, initially filed EA.No.113 of 2006
under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. Keeping it pending for nearly five
th
years, the said application was allowed to be dismissed for default on 10
November 2011, only for the petitioner to come up with another
application in EA.No.1 of 2012 by invoking the provision under Section
47 of CPC. This E.A.No.1 of 2012 was contested by Mythili conveniently
th
for six long years and it was ultimately dismissed on 8 February 2018.
She did not stop there and she filed another EA.No.41 of 2018 under
th
Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC and this came to be dismissed on 20 August
2018. Thus, it is beyond any cavil of doubt that the decree that was
th
passed on 13 March 1995 was not allowed to be enjoyed by the decree
holder, namely Mr. Manikandan during his lifetime by the conduct of this
petitioner in filing one application after another in EA.No.113 of 2006,
E.A.No.1 of 2012 and EA.No.41 of 2018. EA.No.41 of 2018 was
th
dismissed on 20 August 2018. Mr. Rajashekar lived only for two more
__________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:47:35 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2848 of 2026
th
months and he died on 5 October 2018, without enjoying the benefits of
the decree.
7.Upon his death, Selvi, Pratibha and Vivek, claiming to be the
legal heirs filed EA.No.61 of 2024 to bring them on record in the place of
the deceased decree holder Mr. Rajasekhar. This application was allowed
th
on 5 April 2025. This had not been put to challenge by the petitioner,
Mythili. Subsequently, another EA.No.70 of 2025 was filed to carry out
th
the amendments and that was allowed on 25 June 2025. Now at this
stage, Mythili had realized that she has one more round of litigation left
with her by contesting the locus standi of the legal representatives who
are brought on record in the place of the deceased Rajasekhar. By
claiming that the legal representatives brought on record in the place of
Mr. Rajasekhar are not his actual legal heirs, she had not filed a civil
revision petition but E.A.No.129 of 2025 seeking to reopen EA.No.61 of
2024.
8.Surprisingly in this EA., the said Mythili never let in any
evidence. She did not produce any documents. Rather, the learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that she could not bring any
__________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:47:35 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2848 of 2026
material to show that Selvi, Pratibha and Vivek are not the legal heirs of
the deceased Rajasekhar. She has no grievance to hand over the property
to a person who is the genuine legal heir of the said deceased Rajasekar.
This according to this Court is a very shame submission as this petitioner,
Mythili contested the execution proceedings since 2006 till 2018 against
the original decree holder Mr.Rajasekhar.
9.Admittedly this Mythili is a purchaser under the original
judgment debtor Mr. Bhashyam after the passing of the decree in
th
O.S.No.78 of 1981. The decree was granted on 13 March 1995, and the
th
purchase of Mythili is n 7 April 1997. The allegation of fraud leveled by
the petitioner has to be substantiated by bringing at least a semblance of
material on record. Mythili did not even enter into the witness box and
did not even depose that the impleaded legal heirs are not the actual legal
heirs of Mr. Rajasekhar. Mythili is a person claiming against the interests
of Mr. Rajasekhar.
10.I do not find any infirmity in the order of the executing court. In
the impugned orders of the executing Court it has rightly held that the
petitioner has no locus standi to challenge or seek reopening of EA.No.61
of 2024.
__________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:47:35 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2848 of 2026
11.Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed as
lacking in merits and bona fide. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
23-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MM
__________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:47:35 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2848 of 2026
N.DILIP KUMAR J.
MM
CRP(MD) No. 2848 of 2026
AND
CRP(MD) NO. 2849 OF 2026,CMP(MD) NO. 14644 OF 2026
23-10-2026
__________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:47:35 pm )