G.Ranganathan vs M.Subramani

CRP No. 6964 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6964 of 2026
and
CMP No. 29949 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012628042026}
1. G.Ranganathan
2. Karunakaran
Egavalli (died)
Saroja(Died)
Vijaya(died)
Jaya (died)
3. Kanchana
4. Sumathi
5. D.Augustin
6. J.Paulraj
7. D.Cruz
8. Carlina
9. S.Jule
10.Lawrence
...Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. M.Subramani
M.Mariappan (died)
2. M.Chengalvarayan
Annammal (Died)
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )

CRP No. 6964 of 2026
3. Anbu
4. Velayutham,
5. Sundari
6. Lakshmi
7. M.sumathi
8. Prakasam
9. Deivayanai
10.M.sivagami
11.Sumathi
12.Umameswari
13.Amulraj
14.Mythili
15.Selvi
16.Samundeeswari
17.M.Janani
18.M.Nivetha
19.Doss
20.N.Murugan
21.N.Dinakaran
22.Muthu
23.Kalairasi
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )

CRP No. 6964 of 2026
24.N.Ezhilarasi
25.N.Pogazharasi
26.Wilson
27.Epse
...Respondent(s)
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil
Procedure Code, to set the fair and decretal order dated 25.09.2026 passed in
EP.No.12 of 2026 in OS.No.436 of 2002 on the file of the court of the Principal
District Munsif Court, Alandur.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. J.Antony Jesus
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the
Executing Court, which allowed the Execution Petition filed by the respondents.
2. The respondents herein filed a suit seeking a declaration of title,
recovery of possession after removal of the superstructure on the suit property,
and other reliefs. The said suit was decreed, and the decree was put into
execution in E.P. No. 12 of 2026. By the impugned order, the Executing Court
ordered the delivery of the suit property. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
have come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, challenging
the decree for recovery of possession obtained by the respondents, the
petitioners have filed an appeal before the Regular First Appellate Court, which
is currently pending. According to the counsel, the Executing Court ought not to
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )

CRP No. 6964 of 2026
have ordered the execution of the decree during the pendency of the said appeal.
It is further stated that in respect of the very same property, a partition suit was
filed by one Ganesan in O.S. No. 46 of 1985, though the said suit was dismissed
and S.L.P arising out of that dismissal is also pending before the First Appellate
Court.
4. A perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioners in the suit
would indicate that the plea regarding the partition suit filed by Ganesan was
already raised in the written statement, and the same was found against the
petitioners. The decree for recovery of possession passed by the Trial Court is
put into execution. The petitioners have not succeeded in getting any stay from
the First Appellate Court, though he challenged the Trial Court decree. In the
absence of any stay from a superior forum, the Executing Court is justified in
proceeding with the Execution Petition and ordering the delivery of the
property.
5. It is settled that points already decided against the parties cannot be re-
agitated in a Section 47 Application. The petitioners appear to have filed an
application before the Executing Court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil
Procedure raising objection regarding identity of suit property. Whether the suit
property is capable of getting identified or not is a matter to be decided by the
Court at the time of effecting delivery. A perusal of the schedule property found
in the decree would indicate the property has been properly described with
survey numbers, door number, street number, linear measurements, etc.
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )

CRP No. 6964 of 2026
6. Prima facie , there is no shortcoming in the description of the property
found in the decree. If the amin, at the time of effecting delivery, finds any
difficulty in identifying the property, he will file a report before the Executing
Court to that effect, and at that stage, the Court may consider the said report and
pass appropriate orders. Therefore, the petition said to have been filed by the
petitioners before the Executing Court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil
Procedure on the ground that the property is unidentifiable appears to be a
prematured one. I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned
order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil miscellaneous Petition is closed.
No costs.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he has
already moved a stay petition before the First Appellate Court, and the same has
not been taken into consideration. The First Appellate Court, namely the Sub-
Court, Alandur, is directed to take up the stay petition filed by the petitioners in
A.S.No.24 of 2026 and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible.
02-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
rya
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )

CRP No. 6964 of 2026
To:-
1. The Principal District Munsif Court,
Alandur.
2. The Sub-Court,
Alandur.
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )

CRP No. 6964 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
rya
CRP No. 6964 of 2026
and
CMP No. 29949 of 2026
02-11-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 01:24:30 pm )