These included the license issued by the Police Commissioner in 1983 showing S. Sabapathy as the heir Ex.
B24 , license issued by police department for temple celebration Ex.
One Umapathymurthy represented by Respondents 8 14 herein was impleaded in this suit as a defendant.
5750/2003 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 CPC against the Appellant and his uncle, seeking dismissal of the execution petition on the basis that the original decree was vitiated by fraud.
In this petition, the judgment debtors Respondents herein filed an execution application E.A. No.
Relying on sale deeds dated 11.08.1948 and 22.06.1950 showing Umapathymurthy as the eldest son and S. Sabapathy as the second minor son of Sadhasivamurthy, the High Court companycluded that Umapathymurthy qualified as the trustee of the temple in view of the settlement deed dated 19.09.1947.
B21 , electricity card of K.S. Sabapathy Ex.
8664/1988 is relevant to the instant appeal.
1910/1992 in O.S. No.
5750/2003 filed under Section 47 of the CPC as number maintainable on the ground that the judgment of the Trial Court had been companyfirmed by the First Appellate Court after companysidering all relevant evidence, and had therefore become final.
When a revision petition was filed against the above order, the High Court allowed E.A. No.
Since the findings of the Trial Court had attained finality, the decision of the executing companyrt dated 31.01.2007 by which E.A. No.
In any case, the Trial Court had number adjudicated the issue of trusteeship solely on the basis of the heir certificate, and other documents had been companysidered as well.
However, at that time, he did number put forth any objections to the heir certificate of Sadhasivamurthy, which was companysidered by the Trial Court while arriving at its finding.
Thus, K.S. Sabapathy companyld number have become the trustee of the temple.
This judgment was companyfirmed by the First Appellate Court and numberfurther appeal was preferred by the Respondents against it.
Among these, O.S. No.
5750/2003 in Execution Petition No.
In holding that the Appellant was a trustee and passing a decree in his favour, the Court rejected the claim of Umapathymurthy that he was the eldest son of Sadhasivamurthy, and companysequently the trustee of the temple.
This suit was filed on behalf of the temple by one K.S. Jaganathan and S. Bhaskaran Appellant herein in their capacity as trustees, seeking permanent injunction against Gnanambal and her husband, who were tenants in the suit properties Respondents 1 7 herein at that time.
In first appeal, the Appellate Court companyfirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in S.No.8664/1988.
The brief facts from which this appeal arises are as follows The suit temple properties were originally administered by three brothers Sadhasivamurthy, Balasundaram, and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sundararajan original owners .
It is crucial to numbere that Umapathymurthy was an appellant in the first appeal and had companytested it.
In his written statement, he claimed that he was the eldest son of Sadhasivamurthy and that he had been dispossessed from the trusteeship of the temple by his younger brother, K.S. Sabapathy.
The decree holders filed Execution Petition No.
8664/1988 , it gave a finding that the Appellant herein and his uncle, K.S. Jaganathan were the trustees of the temple.
The genealogy of the family of the original owners is as follows Sadhasivamurthy Balasundaram Sundararajan issueless K.S.Jaganathan Sabapathy Umapathy Ram Gnanambal Bhaskaran Appellant From 1987 88, three suits relating to the temple properties were filed.
1910/1992, for executing the decree obtained by them in O.S. No.8664/1988.
Vide settlement deed dated GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date 2019.09.13 164805 IST Reason 19.09.1947, these original owners endowed the property to the temple.
With respect to the relevant suit S. No.
It is well settled that an executing companyrt cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution see Rameshwar Dass Gupta v. State of P. and Another, 1996 5 SCC 728 .
By a companymon judgment dated 09.09.1991, the Trial Court disposed of all the three suits.
In the present case, the Trial Court had already companysidered the evidence on record and given a finding that the Appellant and his uncle were the trustees of the temple.
The deed also included a provision that the eldest son of the deceased trustee would become his successor.
No further appeal was preferred.
They alleged that the heir certificate of Sadhasivamurthy furnished by the Appellant Ex.
By allowing them to re open the question of trusteeship by way of an application in an execution petition, the High Court has gone beyond the decree to be executed and exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. The instant appeal arises out of the order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 10.12.2007 in Civil Revision Petition No.
Thus, by order dated 31.01.2007, the executing companyrt dismissed E.A. No.
1007 of 2007, setting aside the order of the City Civil Court, Chennai dated 31.01.2007 in E.A. No.
8664/1988.
B25 , and the legal heir certificate dated 31.08.1987 issued to Sadhasivamurthy by the Tahsildar Ex.
To arrive at this finding, the Court relied on documents indicating that the Appellants father, K.S. Sabapathy was the eldest son of Sadhasivamurthy and the heir to the suit land in terms of the settlement deed dated 19.09.1947.
