Mecheri Lakshmi Amma vs Puliyakkottu Rajan
2021 Latest Caselaw 1309 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

   WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                       OP(C).No.643 OF 2015(O)

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 558/2008 OF I ADDITIONAL SUB
                        COURT, KOZHIKODE


PETITIONERS:

      1        MECHERI LAKSHMI AMMA
               AGED 76 YEARS
               D/O. NARAYANI AMMA,
               VADAKKUVEETIL HOUSE,
               NAIRKUZHI P.O., POOLAKKODE VILLAGE,
               NAIRKUZHI DESOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

      2        MECHERI JAYAKRISHNAN
               AGED 60 YEARS
               S/O. LAKSHMI AMMA,
               VADAKKUVEETIL HOUSE,
               NAIRKUZHI P.O.,
               POOLAKKODE VILLAGE, NAIRKUZHI DESOM,
               KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

      3        MECHERI BABURAJAN
               AGED 51 YEARS
               S/O. LAKSHMI AMMA, VADAKKUVEETIL HOUSE,
               NAIRKUZHI P.O., POOLAKKODE VILLAGE,
               NAIRKUZHI DESOM, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.P.VISWANATHAN (SR.)
               SRI.SUNIL N.SHENOI

RESPONDENT:

               PULIYAKKOTTU RAJAN
               S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, PULIYAKKOTTU HOUSE,
               NAIRKUZHI P.O., POOLAKKODE VILLAGE,
               KOZHIKODE- 673 001.

               R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHU
               R1 BY ADV. SMT.C.S.RAJANI

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.01.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C).No.643 OF 2015            2




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of January 2021

Ext. P7 and P8 orders passed by the earned Sub Judge,

Kozhikode, in O.S. No. 558/2008 are sought to be set aside in this

proceedings initiated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioners are the original defendants in the

suit. Consequent upon a decree for specific performance being

passed, the respondent/plaintiff sought for execution of

conveyance deed through court invoking Section 28 of this Specific

Relief Act. The petitioners raised objection to acceptance of draft

sale deed contending that side of measurements of the property

were not mentioned in the deed. This contention was rejected by

the court below holding that this is not a question which could be

urged or dealt with at the post decreetal stage. Further, no

contention as to extent of property was also admittedly raised at

the trial stage.

3. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners

and the respondents. After hearing both sides, I do not find any

reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below. I am

also the opinion that if at all there was any dispute as to the

extent of property, this ought to have been taken up during the

stage of trial and got decided. Without having such a contention

having been raised, it is quite illegal on the part of the petitioners

to have agitated it at the time when the draft sale deed is sought

to be approved. I hold that the objections raised by the

petitioners were rightly rejected by the court below.

In the result, O.P. fails and it is dismissed.

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE SMF/13.01

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE DECEE PASSED IN O.S 558/2008.

EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE I.A 3406/2014.

EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT SALE DEED

EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A 3406/2014.

EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE I.A 310/2015.

EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN I.A 310/2015

EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/01/2015 PASSED IN EXHIBIT-P2 PETITION

EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/02/2015.

//TRUE COPY// P A TO JUDGE