High Court disposed of petitions challenging a refusal to stay a partition suit. It declined to interfere, directing parties to litigate the interpretation of the Lok Adalath award in the trial court instead.
Parties directed to litigate the interpretation of the Lok Adalath award in the Trial Court regarding the partition suit.
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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1942
OP(C).No.2706 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 486/2003 DATED 05-09-2019 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS:
K.P.MOHANAN, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, KONULLI HOUSE, KALAMASSERRY P.O., ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.M.V.DAS SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN SRI.S.JAYAKUMAR SMT.K.P.AMRUTHA SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT:
CHANDRA MOHAN, S/O.KUNJAN VAIDYAN, KARIMBIL HOUSE, MUTHEDATHUKAVU KARA, VAIKOM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK -686 141.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.08.2020, ALONG WITH OP(C).1049/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).Nos.2706/2019 & 1049/2020
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1942
OP(C).No.1049 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 809/2014 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:
K.P.MOHANAN AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, KONULLI HOUSE, KALAMASSERRY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.M.V.DAS SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN SRI.S.JAYAKUMAR SMT.K.P.AMRUTHA
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF/DECREE HOLDER:
CHANDRA MOHAN S/O.KUNJAN VAIDYAN, KARIMBIL HOUSE, MUTHEDATHUKAVU KARA, VAIKOM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, PIN - 686 141.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.08.2020, ALONG WITH OP(C).2706/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).Nos.2706/2019 & 1049/2020
3
JUDGMENT
I am considering and disposing of the
afore two original petitions jointly,
since the factual factors are analogous
and the prayer sought are interlayer.
been filed Shri.K.P.Mohanan against Shri.Chandra Mohan.
Shri.K.P.Mohanan that an extent of 1 Acre of land at Kalavoor Village was purchased
by him and Shri.Chandra Mohan jointly;
but that on the allegation that certain amounts were due from him, Shri.Chandra Mohan had filed O.S.No.486 of 2003 on the
files of the Additional Munsiff,
Alappuzha. He says that this suit was compromised between the parties, leading to an Award under the aegies of the Lok
Adalath conducted by the District Legal Service Authority, Alappuzha, a copy of
OP(C).Nos.2706/2019 & 1049/2020
4
which is on record as Ext.P1 in both
these original petitions.
effect of Ext.P1 Award is that
Shri.Chandra Mohan will have to convey to him the entire 1 Acre of land, on him depositing an amount of Rs.1,35,000/-, as mentioned therein. As per him, he has now deposited this money, as was allowed by this Court through the judgment in O.P(C)No.2011 of 2014, a copy of which
has been appended to O.P(C)No.1049 of 2020 as Ext.P2.
is that, in spite of this, Shri.Chandra
Mohan is refusing to convey his share in the property and that even without doing so, he filed O.S.No.809 of 2014 before
the Munsiff’s Court, Alappuzha, seeking a partition of the said property. Shri.K.P.Mohanan asserts that the attempt
5
OP(C).Nos.2706/2019 & 1049/2020
of Shri.Chandra Mohan is to obtain 50%
share in the property, even though he is not entitled to any such, consequent to the afore mentioned Award of the Lok
Adalath.
therefore, preferred I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.809 of 2014 seeking that the trial of the said suit be stayed under the provisions of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC for short), until the execution proceedings in O.S.No.486 of 2003 is completed. He then admits that he had earlier filed E.A.No.220 of 2018 in the Execution Petition that was then pending in O.S.No.486 of 2003, under the provisions of Section 47 of the CPC, asserting that Ext.P1 Award grants him the entire rights over the property and for a consequential declaration to such effect; but that the same has been
OP(C).Nos.2706/2019 & 1049/2020
6
dismissed by the Munsiff’s Court, through
an order dated 05/09/2019, a copy of which is appended as Ext.P3 in O.P(C)No.1049 of 2020.
order of the Munsiff’s Court in E.A.No.220 of 2018 in E.P.No.267 of 2019 in O.S.486 of 2003 through O.P(C)No.2706 of 2019; while he challenges the order of the said Court refusing stay of the trial of O.S.809 of 2014, through O.P(C)No.1049 of 2020.
however, proceed to dispose of these matters because Shri.Chandra Mohan has neither entered appearance nor he is present in person for arguing O.P(C)No.1049 of 2020 and also because,
OP(C).Nos.2706/2019 & 1049/2020
7
in the nature of the directions that I
propose herein, it would not cause any prejudice to him.
learned counsel appearing for
Shri.K.P.Mohanan quite in detail.
counsel submits that the cause of action and the subject matter of both O.S.No.809 of 2014 and the E.P. in O.S.No.486 of 2003 are one and the same; and therefore, that Section 10 of the CPC would apply. He says that, as is clear from Ext.P1 Award, Shri.Chandra Mohan was obligated
to convey his share in the property to his client after receiving Rs.1,35,000/-. He says that since his client has already
deposited this money as per the directions of this Court in O.P(C)No.2011 of 2014 (Ext.P2 in O.P(C)No.1049 of 2020), the Trial Court ought to have
OP(C).Nos.2706/2019 & 1049/2020
8
executed the Award by ordering
Shri.Chandra Mohan to convey his share in the property.
that had the Execution Court issued appropriate orders to give effect to Ext.P1 Award, the subsequent suit, namely O.S.No.809 of 2014, filed by Shri.Chandra Mohan seeking partition of the property, would become not maintainable, since it is clear that he has no further rights on the property. The learned counsel thus contents that the Trial Court ought to have allow his application under Section 10 of the CPC.
Thomas on the afore lines, it is ineluctable that his client's case is
built on Ext.P1 Award. Even a cursive look through the said Award, renders it
at least prima facie evident that what
OP(C).Nos.2706/2019 & 1049/2020
9
the parties agreed for is not in the
manner as is now asserted before me. Pertinently, to a pointed question as to the contents of Ext.P1 Award, Shri.Jacob
Thomas, conceded that there appears to be
an error therein and that what was intended was that the entire property would vest in his client, consequent to the payment mentioned therein. He says that his client will be able to establish this appropriately before the Trial Court
and prays that the Execution Petition in
O.S.No.486 of 2003 be directed to be
taken up and disposed of at the earliest.
propose to say anything further on this issue, lest it should influence the Trial Court in any manner.
Mohan for partition of the property,
OP(C).Nos.2706/2019 & 1049/2020
10
would depend on the interpretation that
Shri.K.P.Mohanan is able to successfully provide to the terms of Ext.P1 Awardsince he asserts that, through it, the
property exclusively becomes his; and consequently thus Shri.Chandra Mohan cannot seek a partition. However, this is a matter of evidence and not something that the Execution Court can do in any E.P that may be filed in O.S.No.486 of 2003 since it can only follow its content
as available; though certainly, Shri.K.P.Mohanan will be at liberty to execute the same as per law as he is entitled. In fact, Shri.Jacob Thomas, his
learned counsel submits that a fresh
E.P., namely E.P.No.65 of 2020 has already been filed in the said suit and that the same is pending.
discussion makes it clear that
OP(C).Nos.2706/2019 & 1049/2020
11
Shri.K.P.Mohanan can certainly defend O.S.No.809 of 2014, being the partition
suit filed by Shri.Chandra Mohan based on Ext.P1 Award and he can also seek the said Award to be enforced as per law, through the Execution Court in O.S.No.486 of 2003.
Award does not offer Shri.K.P.Mohanan the benefit that he is now claiming and that, at the best, he can only claim half rights over the property in question. I am afraid that this order cannot be set aside by this Court at this stage, since by doing so, the subsequent suit filed by Shri.Chandra Mohan, namely O.S.No.809 of 2014 will become frustrated.
OP(C).Nos.2706/2019 & 1049/2020
12
that Shri.K.P.Mohanan must impel all his
contentions based on Ext.P1 Award in O.S.No.809 of 2014, so that the said Court can decide whether the rights of
the parties are equal over the plaint schedule property as claimed by Shri.Chandra Mohan; or if
Shri.K.P.Mohanan can assert exclusive
rights over the same, based on the terms of Ext.P1 Award. While doing so, the said Court will act unfettered and untrammeled
by anything stated in the order dated 05/09/2019 in E.A.No.220 of 2018 in E.P.No.267 of 2009 in O.S.No.486 of 2003, namely Ext.P3 in O.P(C)No.2706 of 2019; and will proceed with the trial of the said suit as per law and after affording necessary opportunity to both sides.
found affirmatively in favour of either parties, all their contentions are left
OP(C).Nos.2706/2019 & 1049/2020
13
open to be urged before the Trial Court in O.S.No.809 of 2014, thus leading to a final judgment and decree therein as expeditiously as is possible.
The afore original petitions are ordered to such extent.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/11.8.2020
OP(C).Nos.2706/2019 & 1049/2020
14
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2706/2019
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOK ADALAT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/03/2018 IN OP(C) NO.2011/2014. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/10/18 IN E.A.NO.220/18 IN E.P.NO.267/2009 IN O.S.NO.486/2003.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
OP(C).Nos.2706/2019 & 1049/2020
15
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1049/2020
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY LOK ADALAT DATED 24.06.2014. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OP(C) NO.2011/2014 DATED 19.03.2018. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.A.NO.220/18 IN E.P.NO.267/2009 IN O.S.NO.486/2003 DATED 05.09.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 1/2020 IN O.S.NO.809/2014 DATED 15.06.2020.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
MC
(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order refusing a stay on a partition suit despite a Lok Adalath award.
How to proceed when there is a conflict between a recognition of exclusive rights in an award and a subsequent suit for partition.
Whether the Execution Court can interpret the terms of a Lok Adalath award to determine exclusive property rights.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.P.Mohanan
Chandra Mohan
Devan Ramachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
