Partly allowed

Kanakavel v. Pazhaniammal

Kerala HC5 Oct 2012CRP/83/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court affirmed the impugned order rejecting the pleas of no means raised by the petitioner, who failed to prove the source of his alleged inherited properties. The court permitted the petitioner to pay the decree debt in ten equal monthly instalments from 1-11-2012, thereby avoiding arrest if conditions are met, while relieving the decree holder of immediate liberty to enforce arrest unle

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was permitted to pay the decree debt in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 1-11-2012. Arrest in civil prison will be avoided if instalments are paid in time; upon violation, th

Kanakavel Vs Pazhaniammal — 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 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/13TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 83 of 2010 ( )

¶6

OS.407/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR

¶7

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR::

¶8

KANAKAVEL, S/O.RAMASWAMY KOUNDER (LATE), THOTTICHIPATHI, KANNIMARI P.O., PATTANCHERRY, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER::

¶11

PAZHANIAMMAL, W/O.VENKITACHALA KONAR, OTTANCHALLA, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH

¶13

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶16

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶17

C.R.P No. 83 of 2010

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 5^th day of October, 2012

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The plea of no means raised by the petitioner/judgment debtor has been turned down by the court below by the order impugned. The decree holder who is a lady has been examined as PW1 and the petitioner did not even mount the box. Ext.X1 extract of the Basic Tax register issued by the Village Officer, Pattancherry was produced. The same revealed that as many as six items of property belonged to the father and uncle of the petitioner.

¶21

Few of the items covered by Ext.X1 extract was assigned away by the petitioner for a fanciful sum of Rs.3,30,000/(Rupees three lakhs thirty thousand only). Only the photostat copy of the sale deed (Document No.1900/1999,S.R.O, Chittur) was produced. The document was not marked in evidence as it was only a photocopy. The same revealed that the items conveyed were part of the properties covered by Ext.X1 extract.

¶22

¶23

C.R.P No. 83 of 2010

¶24

The irresistible conclusion therefore is that the petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the person who owned property covered by Ext.X1 extract .

¶25

The sale in the year 1999 by the petitioner in favour of another was just one year before the passing of the decree for money. The court below cannot therefore be faulted with in holding that the petitioner would have been possessed of means at the time of passing the decree. The petitioner has not tendered any evidence to show that no property covered by Ext.X1 extract devolved on him. The decree holder on the other hand asserted that the majority of the property devolved on the petitioner who assigned away parcels of the same.

¶26

The finding of the court below that the decree holder is possessed of sufficient means to pay the decree debt is rested on evidence. There is sufficient justification for the court below to order the arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison . I however permit the petitioner to pay the decree debt in ten equal monthly instalments starting from 1-11-2012. The petitioner shall not be arrested and detained in civil prison if he complies with the conditions in time. The petitioner will lose the benefit of instalment facility if anyone condition is violated.

¶27

¶28

C.R.P No. 83 of 2010

¶29

The decree holder is then at liberty to insist for the arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison . The order of the court below is affirmed subject to the above reservation.

¶30

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶31

V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE

¶32

smm

¶33

C.R.P No. 83 of 2010 4

Kanakavel v. Pazhaniammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanakavel v. Pazhaniammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padma Ranjith Vs P.B.Venu

Pankajakshiyamma Vs Gowrikuttiyamma

R. Kamalan Nair Vs a. Sureshkumar

Retnamma Vs M/S.Mannam Sugar Mills Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs Mariamma

R.Padmini Devi Vs the Government of Kerala