I am seeking practical legal guidance regarding a long-running **property dispute in Madurai, Tamil Nadu**. I am one of the parties on the side that initiated the original partition proceedings.
**1. Original partition dispute and Lok Adalat settlement**
A partition dispute concerning approximately **2555 sq.ft. of property in Survey Nos. 554 and 555** was pending before the **I Additional District Court, Madurai in O.S. No.607/2022**.
On **14.09.2024**, the parties entered into a compromise before the **Lok Adalat**. The settlement provided that the property should be sold at a proper/good market price without haste, with the sale proceeds divided **57.5% to our side and 42.5% to the opposite side**. The parties were also required to cooperate/sign the necessary documents for the sale.
The Lok Adalat recorded the compromise and the matter was closed accordingly.
**2. Subsequent sale transactions**
Despite the settlement and continuing dispute:
One portion had been sold to **Aathiseshan/Aadhikesavan** during the pendency of the earlier litigation.
A further sale took place in **March 2025** in favour of **Kasivijayarajan**.
We subsequently filed **O.S. No.302/2025** challenging the legal effect/validity of these subsequent transactions and seeking appropriate declarations.
There are also subsequent mortgage transactions concerning the property.
**3. IIFL Home Finance mortgage**
In July 2026, **D. Aathiseshan executed a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds in favour of IIFL Home Finance Ltd.**
The MODT records security for advances up to **₹89.44 lakh**. The documents deposited include the 05.02.2024 sale deed, patta, an earlier Godrej Finance mortgage and its discharge.
IIFL_Litigation_Property_and_LTV_Assessment.pdf
We are particularly interested in obtaining the **IIFL valuation report, legal opinion, loan application, sanction letter, loan purpose/product and title due-diligence records**, because the lender’s valuation may be relevant to determining the property’s market value for execution purposes.
**4. Execution of the Lok Adalat settlement**
We previously filed **E.P. No.100/2025**, but that execution petition was later withdrawn.
We are now considering filing a **fresh execution petition** seeking appropriate court-supervised mechanisms to enforce the Lok Adalat settlement, including:
enforcement of the agreed sale;
appropriate court-supervised sale/auction if legally permissible;
execution of necessary documents if parties refuse to cooperate;
protection against further alienation/encumbrance; and
distribution of sale proceeds according to the **57.5% / 42.5%** settlement.
I would like advice on the correct execution procedure and whether these remedies can be pursued without unnecessarily starting additional proceedings.
**5. Challenges to the Lok Adalat settlement**
The opposing side also attempted to challenge the Lok Adalat settlement before the Madras High Court.
In **CMP(MD) No.11469/2025 / CRP(MD) SR No.54189/2025**, the petitioner sought to challenge the 14.09.2024 Lok Adalat order. The High Court dismissed the CMP as withdrawn, with liberty to pursue the remedy in accordance with law. The Lok Adalat order was not set aside by that order.
In **W.P.(MD) No.27885/2025**, another challenge was dismissed. The High Court held that the petitioner had no locus standi because he had no interest in the property when the compromise was entered into, while leaving liberty to pursue an appropriate civil remedy.
**6. Criminal cases – our concerns**
There are also **criminal cases filed by the opposing side arising out of the property/possession dispute**.
**Our position is that these criminal cases are false and have been used in connection with the underlying property dispute.** We also have serious concerns about possible coordination/nexus between the opposing parties and certain police, RDO and other government officials, based on the manner in which our complaints and possession-related evidence have been handled.
For example, in **C.C. No.2378/2025**, the prosecution alleges an incident on 08.04.2025 involving abusive language and criminal intimidation. We denied the allegations and sought discharge. The Magistrate rejected the discharge petition on 30.03.2026, holding that there were sufficient materials at that stage for the case to proceed to trial.
The defence position recorded in that proceeding is that there was an existing property dispute between the parties and that the criminal allegations were connected to the dispute over possession.
There is also a separate **C.C. No.284/2026**. On **16.09.2026**, charges were framed under Sections **127(2), 296(b), 115(2), 117(1) and 351(3) BNS**. The accused denied the allegations, did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The next hearing is **09.12.2026**.
We have also challenged the Magistrate’s refusal to direct police investigation under **Section 175(3) BNSS** in **Crl.R.C.(MD) No.1299/2026** before the Madras High Court. That proceeding concerns our complaints regarding alleged unlawful acts connected with the property and is **separate from the challenge to the Lok Adalat decree**.
**7. RDO proceedings and concerns regarding possession**
There was also an **RDO proceeding under Section 164 BNSS** concerning the property and alleged disturbance of peace.
The RDO ultimately directed the parties to approach the competent Civil Court for determination of their substantive property rights.
However, we have serious concerns about how **actual physical possession, CCTV footage and the competing versions of events** were considered during the proceedings. We believe the handling of these issues requires scrutiny.
We also suspect possible coordination between the opposing parties and certain officials. **We do not have a judicial finding establishing such a nexus at present**, and this is one of the matters we are seeking to establish through the court record, documentary evidence and CCTV material.
**My main questions**
- What is the proper procedure for executing a **Lok Adalat compromise/decree** when parties do not cooperate with the agreed sale?
- Can the executing court order or supervise a **sale/auction** consistent with the terms of the settlement?
- How should subsequent **sale deeds and mortgages** be dealt with during execution when their effect is already being challenged in O.S.302/2025?
- Can the executing court grant protection against further **alienation/encumbrance**?
- What documents should we seek from **IIFL Home Finance** regarding the ₹89.44 lakh mortgage?
- Can IIFL’s valuation report be relied upon as evidence of market value for execution proceedings?
- Should the mortgage issues be addressed through **O.S.302/2025 and the execution proceedings**, rather than filing a separate case against the lender?
- Are there any important procedural issues to address before filing the **fresh execution petition**, particularly because E.P.100/2025 was previously withdrawn?
- Regarding the criminal cases and our concerns about police/RDO handling, what is the appropriate legal way to place evidence of **selective investigation, possession evidence, CCTV and possible official coordination** before the court?
I am looking for practical advice from people familiar with **Tamil Nadu civil execution, Lok Adalat decrees, property transfers during litigation, mortgages, and connected criminal proceedings**.
I have copies of the relevant court orders, Lok Adalat settlement, sale deeds, mortgage documents and other records and can provide **redacted documents** if they would help.