Remanded

The Haileyburia Tea Estate Ltd. v. Isravel

Kerala HC8 Nov 2012OP(C)/1344/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court was satisfied that the lower court erred in assessing the value of improvements at a figure far exceeding the Advocate Commissioner's report and documentary evidence. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the execution proceedings to afford parties an opportunity to adduce further evidence and ascertain values afresh.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and E.P. No. 25/2002 remanded to the Munsiff of Peermade to issue notice, afford opportunity for evidence to be adduced, and ascertain the value of improvements and pl

The Haileyburia Tea Estate Ltd. Vs Isravel — 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

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/17TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 1344 of 2012 (O)

¶6

EP.25/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, PEERUMEDU

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

THE HAILEYBURIA TEA ESTATE LTD, REGISTERED OFFICE AT KAITHRAM BUILDINGS PALACE ROAD KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS GERNERAL MANAGER FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS MR. B. MOHANA PRABHU

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

ISRAVEL, AGED 48 YEARS S/O THANKAYYA NADAR, CR NO 406, SEMINIVALLEY ESTATE ELAPPARA KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP(C) NO. 1344/2012

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶17

EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT DATED 18-02-2009 ALONG WITH THE VALUATION STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD BUILDING SECTION SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT PEERMADE

¶18

EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 12-08-2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF COURT, PEERMADE

¶19

EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING TAX ASSESSMENT REGISTER OF THE PANCHAYATH DATED 08-08-2009 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, SPECIAL GRADE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ELAPPARA

¶20

EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-01-2012 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PEERMADE IN E.P NO 25/2002

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶22

/TRUE COPY/

¶23

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶24

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶25

OP(C) NO. 1344 OF 2012

¶26

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2012

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The suit for recovery of possession on title though was

¶29

dismissed by the trial court was decreed in appeal. The respondent/defendant had claimed value of improvements to the tune of `1,50,000/-. However the same was relegated to be adjudicated in execution. The decree obliged the petitioner/plaintiff to pay value of improvements to the respondent.

¶30

The Advocate Commissioner deputed by the execution court reported that the building bearing door No. 131 belongs to the respondent and the same comprises of five rooms, kitchen, toilet and a lean-to. The petitioner concedes that the shed bearing door No. 147 in the property where building bearing door No. 131 is situated also belongs to the respondent. The Advocate Commissioner has valued the building bearing door No. 131 at ` 2,22,588/- on the basis of the input by the Assistant Engineer of Public Works Department.

¶31

¶32

OP(C) No. 1344/2012

¶33

It is not clear from the order impugned as to how the court below assessed the value of improvements at 6,44,433/-. The report of the Advocate Commissioner indicates the value at2,22,588/- only in regard to the building bearing door No. 131. The petitioner points out that the value of the building bearing door No. 131 is at 5,000/- and the shed bearing door No. 147 is at 2,000/- as per the Building Tax Register of the panchayat. The documentary evidence as well as the objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner are not seen adverted to in assessing the value of improvements.

¶34

I set aside the impugned order and remand E.P. No. 25/20012 to the file of the court of the Munsiff of Peermade. The execution court shall issue notice to the parties and afford them an opportunity to adduce further evidence. The buildings owned by the respondents shall be identified with exactitude by the execution court. Its value shall be ascertained afresh on the basis of the relevant inputs. The value of the improvements as regards the trees and other plantation (pepper, coffee etc.) shall also be ascertained. The proceedings shall be taken to a logical

¶35

¶36

OP(C) No. 1344/2012

¶37

end within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amount already deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order of this court will continue to be in deposit in the court below till orders are passed afresh.

¶38

The Original Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶39

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶40

ncd

The Haileyburia Tea Estate Ltd. v. Isravel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Haileyburia Tea Estate Ltd. v. Isravel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anice @ Anice Paul Vs State of Kerala

V.C.Thomas Vs M.J.Devasia

Valsa Cherian Vs Mathew Cherian

The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Vs Valliyodan Krishnan Nair

Sainudheen Vs Muhammed Sali

Christudas Vs Karunakaran Nadar