Smt Mahadevamma vs Sri V K Govindan Nair on 10 July, 2025
3. Per contra, Sri.Chandrasekhara K., learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1-plaintiff submits that though in
the instrument it is written as possession is handed over, the
actual possession is with the petitioners. It is submitted that
the petitioners have played fraud on respondent No.1 as well as
on the Court as they entered into agreement of sale on
04.07.2008 and in collusion with other parties, filed
O.S.No.71/2011 and got the said suit compromised and
thereafter, entered into a registered partition deed between the
family members. By such act, the petitioners have played fraud
and sold the property to the third party on the strength of the
partition deed. It is further submitted that the conduct of the
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:25332
W.P. No.2088/2020
HC-KAR
petitioners is required to be looked into and on that ground also
the writ petition is liable to be rejected. It is also submitted that
insofar as the issue with regard to the deficit Court fee is
concerned, the respondent No.1-plaintiff has sought the relief
of specific performance as well as the possession. It is
submitted that if the possession is with the respondent No.1-
plaintiff, he would not have sought the relief of possession.
Hence, the trial Court has rightly considered the said issue and
rejected the petitioners' prayer for impounding the document
and direction to pay the deficit Court fee & penalty. It is further
submitted that if the plaint averments indicate that the
respondent No.1-plaintiff is not in possession, the same is
required to be looked into as held by this Court in the case of
A.M.Sunil Kumar v. Manjunath4. Hence, he seeks to dismiss
the petition.