Kerala High Court
Geetha Nair vs Muraleedharan Nair on 2 February, 2026
Author: T.R. Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
2026:KER:8566
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 13TH MAGHA, 1947
OP(C) NO. 2168 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2024 IN EA 41/2023 IN EP
NO.49 OF 2021 OF MUNSIFF COURT , PATHANAMTHITTA ARISING OUT
OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.02.2020 IN OS NO.68 OF 2016 OF
MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF:
GEETHA NAIR
AGED 59 YEARS
D/O. GANGADHARAN KARTHA, KIZHAKKEDATHU HOUSE,
EDAMON P.O., EDAMON MURI, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE,
RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 691307.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.HARIDAS
SRI.BIJU HARIHARAN
SMT.SHIJIMOL M.MATHEW
SRI.P.C.SHIJIN
SMT.ROSHIN MARIAM JACOB
SMT.PRAJISHA O.K.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/JUDGEMENT DEBTORS/DEFENDANTS:
1 MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
AGED 60 YEARS
ELECTRICIAN, S/O. GANAGAN PILLAI AND CHELLAMMA,
PURAMATTATHU HOUSE, NALKALICKAL P.O., KIDANGNNOOR
2026:KER:8566
OP(C) NO. 2168 OF 2024
2
MURI, KIDANGANNOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689533.
2 CHELLAMMA
AGED 80 YEARS
D/O. NARAYANI AMMA, PURAMATTATHU HOUSE, NALKALICKAL
P.O., KIDANGNNOOR MURI, KIDANGANNOOR VILLAGE,
KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689533.
3 THULASIDHARAN NAIR,
AGED 57 YEARS
MENTALLY RETARDED AND UNSOUND PERSON,
S/O. CHELLAMMA, PURAMATTATHU HOUSE,
NALKALICKAL P.O., KIDANGNNOOR MURI, KIDANGANNOOR
VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK.PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER 2ND RESPONDENT CHELLAMMA,
PIN - 689533.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:8566
OP(C) NO. 2168 OF 2024
3
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
OP(C) No.2168 of 2024
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 02nd day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
The original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 order whereby EA No.41/2023 in EP No.49/2021 in O.S.No.68/2016 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta has been dismissed by the court below. Petitioner is the decree holder. Respondents have chosen not to appear before this Court. The suit was for eviction of the judgment debtors from the plaint schedule property. As per Ext.P1(a) decree, the court has declared that the plaintiff is the absolute title holder of the plaint schedule property and permitted him to recover possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants. There is also an order 2026:KER:8566 OP(C) NO. 2168 OF 2024 4 restraining the defendants by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or from constructing any structures or from continuing with the illegal construction of the building in the plaint schedule property or cause any damage to it. Based on the commission report produced during the pendency of the suit, stating that constructions were being carried out by the defendants when the Commissioner inspected the property, the court has found that there is trespass. It is in the above circumstances that EA No.41/2023 was filed by the petitioner seeking to evict the judgment debtors from the building which is situated in the decree schedule property and hand over complete possession to the decree holder. The court below has rejected the application, finding that the relief sought is for demolishing the illegal construction and to give possession after evicting the judgment debtors, which is 2026:KER:8566 OP(C) NO. 2168 OF 2024 5 not a relief which has been granted in the decree. The finding is that the relief sought in the execution application is not supported by the decree and is extraneous to the decree.
2. A reading of the judgment and the decree would clearly show that the reasoning in Ext.P3 was without any basis. The specific case of the plaintiff was that there is a trespass and an attempt to make constructions in the plaint schedule property which belongs to the petitioner. The court has found that the property belongs to the petitioner and there is trespass and granted a decree for recovery as well as for prohibitory injunction against the respondents. There is no other manner in which such a decree can be executed except by removing the respondents from the plaint schedule property and by handing over possession either after demolishing or without demolishing the building.
In the above circumstances, Ext.P3 order is set aside.
2026:KER:8566 OP(C) NO. 2168 OF 2024 6 The Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta is directed to reconsider and pass fresh orders in EA No.41/2023 taking note of the observations made, at the earliest, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI JUDGE mpm 2026:KER:8566 OP(C) NO. 2168 OF 2024 7 APPENDIX OF OP(C) NO. 2168 OF 2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN OS NO.
68/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 29.02.2020.
Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS NO. 68/2016
OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 29.02.2020.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE E.P. NO. 49/2021 IN O.S. NO. 68/2016 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL.
Exhibit P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE E.A. NO. 41/2023 IN E.P. NO. 49/2021 IN O.S. NO. 68/2016 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 02.03.2024. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EA NO. 41/2023 IN EP NO. 49/2021 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 18.07.2024.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN IA NO. 370 OF 2016 IN OS.NO. 68 OF 2016 OF THE PATHANAMTHITTA MUNSIFF COURT DATED 11.2.2016.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 24.11.2023 IN E.A.NO. 82 OF 2023 IN E.P.NO.49 OF 2023 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.