Kerala High Court
Paily Mathai vs Parameswaran Nair Madhavan Nair on 20 June, 2024
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP NO. 2737 OF 2001
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2001 IN E.P. NO.234 OF 1989
IN OS NO.120 OF 1962 OF MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT-DEBTOR/DEFENDANT IN SUIT:
1 PAILY MATHAI (DIED),
RESIDING NEAR MAGISTRATE COURT II, MUVATTUPZHA
FROM PALATHINKAL VEEDU, RAMANGALAM KARA, MARADY
VILLAGE.
2 MOLLY
W/O ALIAS, RESIDING AT VALAMATTATHIL HOUSE,
KAKKAD POST, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
3 CHINNAMMA (PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND)
W/O LATE PAILY MATHEW, RESIDING AT VALAMATTATHIL
HOUSE, KAKKAD POST, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
(PETITIONER NO.3 REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND NEXT
FRIEND, PETITIONER NO.2, MOLLY)
[ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE IMPLEADED AS
THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED SOLE
PETITIONER VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2011 IN I.A.
NO.1169/2005 IN CRP NO.2737/2001]
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)
SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/DECREE-HOLDER/PLAINTIFF IN SUIT:
1 PARAMESWARAN NAIR MADHAVAN NAIR (DIED),
BUSINESS, MANGALATHU VEEDU, RESIDING IN
PRABHAGRAHAM, VAZHAPPILLY KARA, VELLOORKKUNNAM
VILLAGE.
2
CRP No. 2737 of 2001
2 K. GOURIKUTTY AMMA
W/O LATE M.P. MADHAVAN NAIR, MANGALATH,
MUDAVOOR P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA.
3 INDIRAVATHY AMMA (DIED),
D/O LATE M.P. MADHAVAN NAIR, MANGALATH,
MUDAVOOR P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA.
4 K. PRABHAVATHY AMMA,
D/O LATE M.P. MADHAVAN NAIR, MANGALATH,
MUDAVOOR P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA.
5 P. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR,
S/O LATE M.P. MADHAVAN NAIR, MANGALATH,
MUDAVOOR P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA.
6 K. BALACHANDRAN,
S/O LATE M.P. MADHAVAN NAIR, MANGALATH,
MUDAVOOR P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA.
7 K.M. RAVINDRAN NAIR,
S/O LATE M.P. MADHAVAN NAIR, MANGALATH,
MUDAVOOR P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA.
8 M. JAYAKUMAR,
S/O LATE M.P. MADHAVAN NAIR, MANGALATH,
MUDAVOOR P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA.
9 SANTHOSHKUMAR M.,
S/O LATE M.P. MADHAVAN NAIR, MANGALATH,
MUDAVOOR P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA.
10 G. VALSALA,
D/O LATE M.P. MADHAVAN NAIR, MANGALATH,
MUDAVOOR P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA.
11 G. SHOBHANA,
D/O LATE M.P. MADHAVAN NAIR, MANGALATH, MUDAVOOR
P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA.
12 P.M. SAJU
RESIDING AT PALATHINGAL HOUSE, MUDAVOOR POST,
MUVATTUPUZHA.
[ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 11 ARE IMPLEADED AS
THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED SOLE
RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2011 IN I.A.
NO.1170/2005 IN C.R.P. NO.2737/2001 AND
ADDITIONAL 12TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS THE
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED 1ST PETITIONER
VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2011 IN I.A.1169/2005 IN
C.R.P. NO.1169/2005 IN C.R.P. NO.2737/2001]
3
CRP No. 2737 of 2001
13 LAILA GANGADHARAN
D/O LATE INDIRAVATHY AMMA, KAPPILLIL HOUSE,
OPPOSITE JAYAKERALAM HIGH SCHOOL PULLUVAZHI P.O,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683541
14 G. KRISHNAKUMAR,
S/O LATE INDIRAVATHY AMMA, KAPPILLIL HOUSE,
OPPOSITE JAYAKERALAM HIGH SCHOOL PULLUVAZHI P.O,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683541
15 B. RAJAN
H/O LATE RAJI GANGADHARAN , KAPPILLIL HOUSE,
OPPOSITE JAYAKERALAM HIGH SCHOOL PULLUVAZHI P.O,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683541
16 GOWRI RAJAN
D/O LATE RAJI GANGADHARAN , KAPPILLIL HOUSE,
OPPOSITE JAYAKERALAM HIGH SCHOOL PULLUVAZHI P.O,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683541
17 BHASKAR RAJAN
S/O LATE RAJI GANGADHARAN , KAPPILLIL HOUSE,
OPPOSITE JAYAKERALAM HIGH SCHOOL PULLUVAZHI P.O,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683541
[ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 13 TO 17 IMPLEADED AS THE
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED ADDITIONAL
RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ORDER DATED 13.09.2017 IN
I.A. NO.2189/2017 IN C.R.P. NO.2737/2001]
BY ADVS.
SMT.S.AMBILY
SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SR.
SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE SR.
SRI.K.V.KRISHNAKUMAR
SRI.S.VENKATASUBRAMONIA IYER SR.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.06.2024, THE COURT ON 20.06.2024 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
4
CRP No. 2737 of 2001
ORDER
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2024
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.')
challenging the order passed by the Munsiff Court,
Muvattupuzha (for short 'the trial court') in E. P.
No.234/1989 in O.S. No.120/1962.
2. E.P. No.234/1989 has been filed to execute the
decree and judgment in O.S. No.120/1962. The decree was
one for recovery of possession of the decree schedule
properties along with arrears of rent with effect from
03.04.1962. The suit was originally decreed by the trial
court on 08.11.1975. The defendant took up the matter in
appeal as A.S. No.33/1976 before the District Court,
Ernakulam. As per the judgment dated 02.08.1978, the
appeal was dismissed. Though, second appeal was
preferred before this Court as S.A. No.232/1979, it was also
dismissed on 29.05.1979. Thus, the decree has become
final.
3. Before the execution court, the judgment debtor who
is the revision petitioner herein entered appearance and
filed a detailed objection under Section 47 of C.P.C.,
contending that the decree is not executable. The decree
schedule property consists of 6 cents of land lying in Survey
No.371/7B and 5 cents of land lying in Survey No.371/7B/45
of Marady Village. The suit, originally filed was one for
permanent prohibitory injunction. Subsequently, the suit
was amended for recovery of possession of the decree
schedule property contending that during the pendency of
the suit, the defendant trespassed into the property. The
defendant/judgment debtor raised a contention before the
trial court in execution proceedings that after passing the
decree, he obtained Ext.A5 patta with respect to 5 cents of
property lying in Survey No.371/7B on 21.06.1985 and he
became the title holder in respect of the said 5 cents of
property. It is his contention that the decree so far as the
said 5 cents of land is not executable. The trial court
overruled the said objection and found that the decree is
executable as per the impugned order. It is challenging the
said order, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
4. Heard both sides.
5. As stated already, the petitioner now claims
exclusive title over 5 cents of land included in the decree
schedule property on the strength of Ext.A5 patta issued in
his favour on 21.06.1985. The patta was issued to the
petitioner based on the fact that he was holding the
property as kuthakapattam on the basis of Ext.A6
proceedings of the Tahsildar, Muvattupuzha. Ext.A4 is the
judgment of the trial court in O.S. No.120/1962. Ext.A6
proceedings were marked in the said suit as Ext.D10. In
paragraph 20 of the judgment, there is a reference with
respect to Ext.D10. It was found that Ext.D10 is not valid
and binding on the plaintiff and cannot be sustained in a
court of law. In the appellate court judgment also, it was
found that Ext.D10 is not a genuine document and that
based on the same, the defendant/petitioner herein did not
obtain any right over the property. The said finding is
binding on the petitioner. When the Civil Court has found
that Ext.A6 kuthakappatam relied on by the petitioner to
claim title over 5 cents of property is not a valid and
genuine document and based on the same the petitioner did
not get any right over the property, the Tahsildar has no
jurisdiction to issue Ext.A5 patta based on Ext.A6
proceedings. Hence, the trial court has rightly found that
the contention of the petitioner that he has exclusive title
over the 5 cents of property is not correct. The decree is
executable. I see no illegality or impropriety in the
impugned order.
Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
BR
