Kerala High Court
Narayanan Raveendran vs Leelamma Jacob on 4 April, 2011
Author: K.T.Sankaran
Bench: K.T.Sankaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 1330 of 2011(O)
1. NARAYANAN RAVEENDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LEELAMMA JACOB, W/O.FR.JACOB MAMMBALLIL,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :04/04/2011
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
--------------------------------------
O.P.(C).No.1330 of 2011
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2011
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.153 of 1981 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Alappuzha. The suit was filed for fixation of boundary and for consequential injunction. The suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 13.9.1987. The decree was confirmed in Appeal and in Second Appeal. The Second Appeal was dismissed on 20.5.2010.
2. Thereafter, the decree holder filed E.P.No.405 of 2010 to execute the decree. She prayed for appointing a surveyor and Commissioner for executing the decree for fixation of boundary. At that juncture, the judgment debtor filed E.A.No.51 of 2011 to stay the execution proceedings under Rule 26 of Order 21 of the Code of the Civil O.P.(C) No.1330/2011 2 Procedure. In the application, the petitioner stated that S.M.No.12 of 2004 was initiated before the Land Tribunal in respect of the decree schedule property showing the petitioner as the cultivating tenant. It is alleged that the petitioner claims an oral lease of the year 1963 over the property. It is stated that in view of the pendency of S.M.No.12 of 2004 before the Land Tribunal, the proceedings in execution should be stayed.
3. The court below dismissed the application as per Exhibit P3 order dated 14.2.2011, which is under challenge in this Original Petition. The court below noticed that in the suit, the contention of the defendant was that he is in possession of the property on the basis of Exhibit B1 agreement for sale dated 9.9.1980. The genuineness of the agreement was disputed by the plaintiff. The trial court as well as the Appellate and Second Appellate court held that the agreement set up by the petitioner herein is not genuine. At present, the O.P.(C) No.1330/2011 3 petitioner has shifted his stand and he claims that he is a cultivating tenant and suo moto proceedings were initiated in his favour before the Land Tribunal. The reasons stated in the application for stay are not sufficient for staying the execution proceedings. The suit was filed 30 years ago and all the courts found that the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs. Still she could not enjoy the fruits of the decree. At this stage, if the contentions of the petitioner are accepted, it will have the effect of continuing to deny the fruits of the decree to the respondent/decree holder.
No grounds are made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl