This revision petition challenged an order removing obstruction to execution of a partition decree. The petitioner claimed rights via an agreement for sale. The High Court held the petitioner was bound by the decree and dismissed the petition.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/31ST BHADRA, 1936
CRP.No. 368 of 2010 ( )
E.P.NO.91/2007 IN OS 13/1995 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
ALI, ALAMPADATH, ARAKKURUSSI AMSOM, DESOM IN MANNARKKAD TALUK - 678 582.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
SRI.K.JAGADEESH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND 2ND RESPONDENT:
R1 TO 4 BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI R1 TO 4 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
dl/
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
C.R.P. No.368 of 2010
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2014
O R D E R
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The property in question is the subject matter of O.S. No.13/1995 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ottapalam, which is a suit for partition. A preliminary decree followed by a final decree was passed in the matter, and the property in question was allotted to respondents 1 to 4 herein. Even then, the parties had to move the court in execution. The execution proceedings culminated in an order of delivery. When Amin came to the spot for effecting delivery, the present petitioner obstructed the delivery.
CRP.368/2010
: 2 :
obstructed the execution by forwarding a contention that he has been in possession of the property. The decree holders, who wanted to get the decree executed, applied for removal of obstructions under Order XXI Rule 35 as well as Order XXI Rule 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court below considered the matter under Order XXI Rule 97 (2) and passed the impugned order under Order XXI Rule 98.
CRP.368/2010
: 3 :
recitals in Ext.B1.
CRP.368/2010
: 4 :
devoid of merits, and is only to be dismissed, and I do so.
In the result, this C.R.P. is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Sd/-
(B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)
aks/22/09
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition filed to challenge the order removing obstruction to decree execution should be allowed given the petitioner's claim of possession based on an agreement for sale.
Whether a person claiming rights under an agreement for sale executed in favor of a decree-holder is bound by the partition decree and cannot obstruct delivery.
Whether the order passed under Order XXI Rule 98 of the CPC stating that the petitioner's claim has no merit due to lack of registered title calls for interference.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ali, Alampadath
Vasudevan
Vesan @ Ravunni
Meenakshi
Unnikrishnan @ Sundaran
Manu @ Velayudhan
B.Kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
