Allowed

Jameela Rajan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Sept 2012CRP/56/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Privately drafted order allowing a civil revision petition regarding execution proceedings. The High Court set aside the impugned order of the Sub Court for non-consideration of terms accompanying a deposit and remanded proceedings for fresh orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; respondents directed to file calculation statements; execution proceedings remanded to court below to be concluded within three months.

Jameela Rajan Vs State of Kerala — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/16TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 56 of 2012 ()

¶6

EP 368/2009 IN LAR.104/1985 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/DECREE HOLDER:

¶8

JAMEELA RAJAN

¶9

W/O.K.S.RAJAN, KULANGARAYAYA MANORAMA BUNGLOW MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

K.R. SANKAR,

¶11

S/O.K.S. RAJAN, KULANGARAYAYA MANORAMA BUNGLOW MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

LAKSHMI RAJAN,

¶13

D/O.K.S. RAJAN, KULANGARAYAYA MANORAMA BUNGLOW MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM

¶14

REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.R.SANKAR 2ND PETITIONER.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:

¶17

STATE OF KERALA

¶18

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM.

¶19

KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE KOTTAYAM.

¶20

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY. K.T. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU

¶21

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CRP NO. 56/2012

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

ANNEXURE A1	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2006 IN RP 205/04 IN LAA NO. 905/1995.
ANNEXURE A2	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2006 IN EA NO. 654/2001 IN EP NO. 59/04 IN LAR NO. 104/1985 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM.
ANNEXURE A3	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM IN CRP NO. 265/09 DATED 02.04.2009 FILED BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A4	:	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.05.2010 PASSED IN CRP NO. 265/2009 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A5	:	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVIEW PETITION IN RP NO. 865/2010 IN CRP NO. 265/2009, DATED 20.09.2010.
ANNEXURE A6	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN RP NO. 865/2010 DATED 20.08.2011.
ANNEXURE A7	:	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2011 IN EP 368/09 IN LAR NO. 104/1985 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM.

¶25

/TRUE COPY/

¶26

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶27

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶28

C.R.P. NO. 56 OF 2012

¶29

Dated this the 7^th day of September, 2012

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The legal heirs of the decree holder contend that the dictum in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 457] has not been correctly applied by the execution court. They contend that the amount deposited by the State on 01.02.1996 should have been appropriated towards interest, cost and then to the land value.

¶32

The Government Pleader invites my attention to paragraph 51 of the judgment in Gurpreet Singh 's case. She contends that the deposit made on 01.02.1996 is accompanied by a statement. The statement specifies that the amount has to be appropriated towards the land value only. Therefore the appropriation should be on the basis of the terms of deposit as permitted in paragraph 51 of Gurpreet Singh 's case.

¶33

The court below has not specifically adverted to the terms of the statement accompanying the deposit made on 01.02.1996. I have no option but to set aside the impugned order. The legal heirs of the decree holder as well as the

¶34

¶35

CRP No. 56/2012

¶36

judgment debtors can file separate calculation statements. The court below shall advert to the contentions of either parties and pass a detailed order. The execution proceedings shall be taken to a logical end within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

The parties shall appear in the court below on

¶38

03.10.2012. The Registry to send back the records forthwith.

¶39

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶40

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶41

ncd

Jameela Rajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jameela Rajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.E.B Vs Karuvrakkal Kumaran Master

P.G.Shaji Vs v.v.Muraleedharan

Vimala Vs Sukumaran

Abdul Azeez Vs Secretary, Thennala Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Vanaja Visalakshan Vs State of Kerala

Bindu @ Janaki Nirmala Vs Janaki Ambika