Kannamal and another vs Kannappan

Srinivasan, J.—There is no ground for entertaining an application under S. 47, C.P.C., in this matter. The grievance of the Petitioner is that

the order of Court passed on 18-8-1989 after ascertaining the compensation and directing the decree holder to deposit the same in court, did not

amend the schedule by including the description of building therein. If at all any person is aggrieved by the decree, it is only the decree holder and

not the petitioners herein, who have been asked to deliver possession of the land. According to Learned Counsel, under S.4 of the Tamil Nadu

City Tenants Protection Act, there must be a decree for delivery of possession of the superstructure and the land on the compensation deposited

by the decree holder and in the absence of the same, the decree passed by the court below is not executable. I do not agree with him. The decree

is to deliver possession of the property described therein. That property is the land described in the schedule. Certainly the decree holder is entitled

to take deliver of the land described in the schedule. He has already deposited the value of the superstructure. Hence, he is also entitled to the

superstructure along with the land. In Duraiswami Mudaliar v. Ramaswami Chettiar 1979 T.L.N.J. 9 it was held that in execution of a decree for

delivery of possession of a vacant she, the executing Court could direct the demolition or removal of the superstructure erected by the defendant

even before suit. This is an fortiori case as by deposit of compensation, the decree holder has become the owner of the superstructure also. At any

rate, there is no ground for maintaining the application under S. 47, C.P.C., to the effect that the decree is not executable. There is an executable

decree and there is no substance in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners. The Court below has taken the correct view and

dismissed the application.

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.