Kerala High Court
Ali vs Vasudevan on 22 September, 2014
Author: B.Kemal Pasha
Bench: B.Kemal Pasha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/31ST BHADRA, 1936
CRP.No. 368 of 2010 ( )
------------------------
E.P.NO.91/2007 IN OS 13/1995 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALI, ALAMPADATH, ARAKKURUSSI AMSOM,
DESOM IN MANNARKKAD TALUK - 678 582.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
SRI.K.JAGADEESH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND 2ND RESPONDENT:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. VASUDEVAN, S/O.LATE NAVU @ THATHA,
PERINCHOLATHIL, ARAKURUSSI AMSOM, DESOM
MANNARKKAD TALUK 678582.
2. VESAN @ RAVUNNI, S/O.LATE NAVU @ THATHA,
PERINCHOLATHIL, ARAKURUSSI AMSOM, DESOM
MANNARKKAD TALUK 678582.
3. MEENAKSHI, D/O.LATE NAVU @ THATHA,
PERINCHOLATHIL, ARAKURUSSI AMSOM, DESOM
MANNARKKAD TALUK 678582.
4. UNNIKRISHNAN @ SUNDARAN,
S/O.LATE NAVU @ THATHA, PERINCHOLATHIL
ARAKURUSSI AMSOM, DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK 678582.
5. MANU @ VELAYUDHAN,
S/O.LATE CHERIYA CHAMI, PERINCHOLATHIL
ARAKURUSSI AMSOM, DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK 678582.
R1 TO 4 BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI
R1 TO 4 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
dl/
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
C.R.P. No.368 of 2010
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2014
O R D E R
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The property in question is the subject matter of O.S. No.13/1995 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ottapalam, which is a suit for partition. A preliminary decree followed by a final decree was passed in the matter, and the property in question was allotted to respondents 1 to 4 herein. Even then, the parties had to move the court in execution. The execution proceedings culminated in an order of delivery. When Amin came to the spot for effecting delivery, the present petitioner obstructed the delivery.
2. The obstruction was by claiming rights over the property on the basis of an agreement for sale which was allegedly executed 10 years back by the 5th respondent herein in favour of the petitioner. There was a slight mistake in the boundary descriptions of the property. The petitioner CRP.368/2010 : 2 : obstructed the execution by forwarding a contention that he has been in possession of the property. The decree holders, who wanted to get the decree executed, applied for removal of obstructions under Order XXI Rule 35 as well as Order XXI Rule 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court below considered the matter under Order XXI Rule 97 (2) and passed the impugned order under Order XXI Rule
98.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.P.B.Sahasranaman. He has argued that the petitioner, who is in possession of the property, is entitled to maintain his possession. At the same time, it has been considered that he cannot claim any title over the property as the sale deed has not been obtained so far and as he had not taken any steps for getting the agreement specifically performed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that there are variations in the boundary descriptions of the decree schedule property when compared with the CRP.368/2010 : 3 : recitals in Ext.B1.
4. It seems that the court below has considered the matter in detail. All the questions, which came up for consideration under Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, were considered by the court below. The court below has arrived at the conclusion that the property sought to be delivered is the very same property as contained in Ext.B1. Being a person, who had allegedly obtained an agreement for sale, from the present 5th respondent herein, who was a party to the suit, the petitioner is also bound by the decree. The petitioner can only be treated as a person coming through the 5th respondent. As rightly found by the court below, there is no merit in the claim forwarded by the petitioner in causing obstruction to the delivery. The court below has rightly allowed the removal of obstructions through the impugned order. The impugned order does not call for any interference as the same does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. Matters being so, this C.R.P. is CRP.368/2010 : 4 : devoid of merits, and is only to be dismissed, and I do so.
In the result, this C.R.P. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) aks/22/09 // True Copy // PA to Judge