Milton Ducless vs S. Sivakumar

CRP No. 6305 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order Reserved on : 01-10-2026
Order Pronounced on : 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP Nos. 6305 & 6318 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012339642026}
AND
CMP Nos. 27239 & 27208 of 2026
Milton Ducless
..Petitioner
Vs
S.Sivakumar
..Respondent
CRP No. 6318 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012339652026}
Periyasamy (Died)
1. P. Shanmugasundaram
2.Arthi
3.Gomathi
..Petitioners
Vs
S. Sivakumar
..Respondent
CRP No. 6305 of 2026
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the
fair and Decreetal order dated 30-07-2026 made in E.A.No.4/2024 in
EP.No.07/2019 in O.S.No.419/1992 on the file of the Learned Principal District
Munsif, Pollachi
CRP No. 6318 of 2026
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the
fair and Decreetal order dated 30-07-2026 made in E.A.No.3/2024 in
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )

CRP No. 6305 of 2026
EP.No.07/2019 in O.S.No.419/1992 on the file of the Learned Principal District
Munsif, Pollachi
For Petitioners: Ms.M Muthu Yazhini in both CRPs
For Respondent: Mr.N Umapathi in both CRPs
COMMON ORDER
st
The judgment debtor/81 defendant is the revision petitioner in
CRP.No.6305 of 2026, challenging the order in EA.No.4 of 2024 in EP.No.7 of
th
2019. Similarly, the 58 defendant and judgment debtor is the revision
petitioner in CRP.No.6318 of 26, challenging the order in EA.No. 3 of 24 in
EP.No.7 of 2019.
2.I have heard Ms.M.Muthuyazhini, learned counsel for the revision
petitioners in both the revision petitions and Mr.N.Umapathi, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent/decree holder in both the revision petitions.
3.Mr.M.Muthuyazhini, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the father of the petitioner in CRP.No.6305 of 2026 had purchased house
sites Nos.7 and 8 in the suit schedule property for a valuable sale consideration
from none else than the respondent's father's power agent and pursuant to such
purchase, he had also constructed a house in site No.8 and a shed in site No.7.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner's father and
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )

CRP No. 6305 of 2026
thereafter the petitioner have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of
the said property for more than four decades and the petitioner also obtained
patta in his favour. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the
Executing Court has erroneously dismissed the Section 47 petition, without
adverting to the valid patta and continuous possession for nearly five decades.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the
Executing Court has also failed to note the construction of the house and shed
put up over site Nos.8 and 7 respectively and the error committed by the
Executing Court in ignoring the fact that the decree holder has portrayed the suit
property as vacant land. The learned counsel would further state that the suit
was originally filed for partition and it is a collusive suit amongst the
respondents and innocent purchasers like the petitioners have been put to
serious prejudice. The learned counsel further states that the Executing Court
also failed to note that the final decree itself was passed arbitrarily, ignoring the
bona fide purchase made by the petitioner. The learned counsel would therefore
state that the dismissal of the Section 47 application is clearly erroneous and
therefore, the petitioner is entitled to relief.
5.Insofar as CRP.No.6318 of 2026, advancing similar arguments, the
learned counsel for the petitioners states that the father of the petitioner had
purchased a portion of the suit property through the respondent’s father's power
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )

CRP No. 6305 of 2026
agent as early as in 1974 for valuable sale consideration and despite repeated
request made by the petitioner's father, sale deed was not executed in favour of
the petitioner's father. The learned counsel therefore states that the very suit for
partition in OS.No.419 of 1992 was clearly a collusive attempt to defeat the
genuine rights of bonafide purchasers like the revision petitioners in both the
revision petitions.
6.Per contra, Mr.N.Umapathi, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/decree holder in both the revision petitions contends that the
petitioners cannot claim to be bonafide purchasers, that too, based on
unregistered documents and excepting relying upon revenue records, there is no
acceptable or credible evidence to be relied on, to claim valid and independent
title. He would therefore state that the Executing Court has rightly dismissed the
Section 47 applications and no interference is warranted with the well
considered orders passed by the Executing Court in both the cases.
7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel on either side.
8.The revisions are at the instance of two independent sets of purchasers,
who claim to be bonafide purchasers for value. In fact, they claim that they have
paid sale consideration to none else than the respondent's father, represented by
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )

CRP No. 6305 of 2026
his power agent. Admittedly no registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners
is produced. In fact, on the contrary, it is the admitted position of the petitioners
that despite several requests made by the petitioners, registered sale deeds were
not executed in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners only relied on a patta,
which is issued based on possession alone. It is only a revenue document and
not a document of title. In such circumstances, the mere fact that patta has been
obtained by the petitioners is not a ground to entertain their objections or the
Section 47 application, questioning the executability of a valid decree passed in
favour of the respondent/decree holder. The decree was passed way back in
1997 in a suit filed in the year 1992 and final decree has also been passed and
the respondent/decree holder has not been able to enjoy the fruits of the decree
for almost three decades as on date.
9.There is absolutely no merit in the Section 47 application and the
Executing Court has rightly found that there is no merit in the objections taken
in the Section 47 applications and the admitted fact that there is not even a
registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners has also been duly taken note of
by the Executing Court. I do not find any error committed by the Executing
Court in dismissing the objection applications filed by the petitioners,
warranting interference in revision.
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )

CRP No. 6305 of 2026
10.In fine, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However,
considering that the petitioners have been in possession for the past several
decades, I am inclined to grant reasonable time to the petitioners to vacate and
hand over vacant possession peacefully to the respondent/decree holder. The
petitioners shall continue to occupy the suit property until 31.12.2026, on or
before which date, the petitioners shall vacate and hand over vacant possession
of the premises under their occupation, without any protest or demur. In the
event of there being any default committed by the petitioners in not vacating
and handing over vacant possession of the suit property by 31.12.2026, then the
respondent/decree holder shall be entitled to proceed with the execution
petitions and the Executing Court shall ensure that possession is delivered to the
respondent/decree holder, within a period of 15 days, i.e., on or before
15.01.2027. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
16-10-2026
ATA
To
The Principal District Munsif, Pollachi.
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )

CRP No. 6305 of 2026
P.B.BALAJI J.
ATA
CRP Nos. 6305 & 6318 of 2026
16-10-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:28 am )