Dismissed

T.K. Narayanan Potty v. Lalthambika Antharajnam

Kerala HC1 Jun 2018CRP/383/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a civil revision petition where the judgment debtor objected to property delivery in execution citing unidentifiable property. The court held that since the lower appellate court had already rejected this contention and the property was identified per the accepted plan, no illegality existed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's objection to delivery of property and the civil revision petition were dismissed.

T.K. Narayanan Potty Vs Lalthambika Antharajnam — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

CRP.No. 383 of 2018

¶6

[ORDER IN EA 111/14 IN EP 438/03 IN OS 2017/98 OF ADDL. MUNSIFF-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM]

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR

¶8

T.K. NARAYANAN POTTY,

¶9

S/O.KRISHNAN POTTY, RESIDING AT AMBILI BHAVAN,

¶10

T.C.6/558, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.D.SAJEEV

¶12

SMT.LIGEY ANTONY

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER:

¶14

LALTHAMBIKA ANTHARJANAM, LALITHA BHAVAN, RESIDING AT T.C.6/570, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695013.

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C. R. P. No.383 of 2018

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2018

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner-judgment debtor objects to the delivery of property in execution of the decree, on the ground of identity of the property.

¶21

The suit is one for fixation of boundary. The contention of the petitioner-judgment debtor is that the decree is not executable for the reason that the decree schedule property is not identifiable. In the trial stage a Commissioner was deputed to identify the property. The Commissioner filed Ext.C1 Report and Ext.C1(a) Plan. Before the trial court the main contention of the defendant was regarding the identity of the property. In its judgment dated 03.08.2002, the learned Munsiff held thus:

¶22

“The one and only dispute in

¶23

this case is with respect to the identification of the plaint

¶24

C. R. P. No.383 of 2018

¶25

:- 2 :-

¶26

schedule property. The said fact was considered in detail by examining the commissioner as well as surveyor. Both of them has stated that the property was identified and located with the help of survey plan as well as the partition deed. Therefore, I am of the view that the property identified by the surveyor is the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to put up boundary demarcating the same with that of defendant's property on the south and west. Considering these facts this issue is found in favour of the plaintiff.”

¶27

The defendant challenged the decree in appeal which was dismissed. Therefore, the contention now urged by the petitioner-judgment debtor regarding identity of the property is not liable to be entertained. Though the learned

¶28

C. R. P. No.383 of 2018

¶29

:- 3 :-

¶30

counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the boundaries of the property as given in the decree schedule would not tally with that given in Ext.C1(a) Plan, the plan was accepted by the trial court and the appellate court, the said contention does not survive any more.

¶31

The property has already been identified and located as per Ext.C1(a) Plan. The decree shall be executed in terms of Ext.C1(a) Plan. I do not find any illegality with the impugned orders. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

Sd/SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P. S. to Judge

C. R. P. No.383 of 2018

¶37

:- 4 :-

T.K. Narayanan Potty v. Lalthambika Antharajnam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K. Narayanan Potty v. Lalthambika Antharajnam

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

Vijayakumaran Nair Vs Ananthasubramanya Ayyer

Bindu Vs John Baby

Ambika Vs Lissy

Sahadevan Vs C.K. Rajendraprasad (Died)

Muhammedkutty Vs Moideenkutty

Lakshmi Vs Gopi