CRP.No.384 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 08.01.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR CRP.No.384 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.1820 of 2024 Krishnamurthy ... Petitioner Versus 1.Ramany Kala (deceased) represented by LRs 2.Saravanan 3.Badma 4.Kirubakar 5.Ramesh 6.Bhuvaneshwari 7.Manivannan ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decretal order passed in E.A.No.2 of 2023 in E.A.No.160 of 2019 in E.P.No.400 of 2017 in O.S.No.87 of 2007 dated 21.08.2023 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Puducherry. For petitioner : Mr.R.Natarajan For respondents : Mr.J.Jayalakshmi for R1 No appearance for R2, 5, 6 & 7 Page 1 / 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.384 of 2024 ORDER Challenge has been made to the order passed by the Executing Court in E.A.No.2 of 2023 2. Brief background of the case is as follows: 2.a. The first respondent has filed a suit for partition for alloting 1/3rd share in the suit property. The preliminary decree was passed in her favour. Consequently, final decree is also passed in I.A.No.33 of 2005. It is to be noted that even during the final decree proceedings, the revision petitioner has filed an application to implead himself as a party to the proceedings. As the application is numbered in I.A.No.424 of 2009, the same has been dismissed on 17.08.2010. Therefore, before passing final decree proceedings, commissioner was appointed and property was divided by metes and bounds and 1/3rd share which is shown as 2A was alloted to the decree holder and excessive amount also ordered to be deposited before the Court. This proceedings reached finality. When executing proceedings was filed for taking possession of the property alloted to the decree holder, an application was filed by the revision petitioner as obstructor seeking to examine the Member Secretary of the Pondicherry Planning Authority to show that minimum 6 feet road is required for approval and construction of any building in a Page 2 / 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.384 of 2024 plot under Pondicherry Town and Country Planning Act, 1969. However, the said application has been dismissed. Challenging the order, the present revision has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent and perused the materials placed on record. 4. The fact that the petitioner purchased 2/3rd share from the other co-owner after the decree has been passed in not in dispute. When the party has purchased the property from the judgment debtor after the institution of the suit in which decree has been passed have no right whatsoever in law to resist the execution or make an obstruction in execution proceedings as per Order XXI Rule 103 of CPC. Admittedly, even in the final decree proceedings, the revision petitioner has attempted to implead himself in the proceedings, however, the same was negatived and final decree is also passed long back which has not been challenged and the matter has reached finality. N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. Page 3 / 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.384 of 2024 5. The petitioner being a pendente lite purchaser from the co-owner will normally step into the shoes of the vendor and whatever the properties alloted or eligible to the vendor alone will be entitled to the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage, he cannot seek indulgence of the execution court to prove certain facts for convenient enjoyment when the property has already been alloted in the final decree. Whatever the property is alloted to the vendor alone, the revision petitioner is entitled, he cannot seek any excessive land or road. 5. Such view of the matter, I do not find any merits in this revision and accordingly, this revision stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. 08.01.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking/non speaking order dhk To, The Principal Sub Judge Principal Sub Court, Puducherry CRP.No.384 of 2024 Page 4 / 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis