Kerala High Court
Karunya Charitable Society ... vs The Latin Catholic Diocese on 3 October, 2024
2024:KER:73470
O.P.(C). No.2045 of 2024 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 11TH ASWINA, 1946
OP(C) NO. 2045 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 4/2022 IN EA NO.9 OF 2022 OF III
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF
THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN EP NO.123 OF 2003 OF III
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE EA/ADDITIONAL JUDGMENT DEBTORS 6
TO 8:
1 KARUNYA CHARITABLE SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY THE
GENERAL SECRETARY, K.PARAMESWARAN NAR
AGED 60 YEARS
REG. NO. 732/1990, CONVENT ROAD, GENERAL HOSPITAL
JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
2 THE PRESIDENT, KARUNYA CHARITABLE SOCIETY
REG. NO. 732/1990, CONVENT ROAD,GENERAL HOSPITAL
JUNCTION,TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695009
3 THE SECRETARY, KARUNYA CHARITABLE SOCIETY
REG. NO. 732/1990, CONVENT ROAD, GENERAL HOSPITAL
JUNCTION,TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695009
BY ADVS.
DINOOP P.D.
M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
RICHU HANNA RANJITH
S.I.SHAH
2024:KER:73470
O.P.(C). No.2045 of 2024 :2:
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER:
THE LATIN CATHOLIC DIOCESE
REPRESENTED BY ITS BISHOP RT.REV. DR. SUSAI PAKKIAM
(DIED) PRESENTLY DR. THOMAS NETTO, TRIVANDRUM, PIN
- 695009
BY ADVS.
PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN
S.SAJITH(K/325/1995)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:73470
O.P.(C). No.2045 of 2024 :3:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
O.P.(C) No.2045 of 2024
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above original petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 order
dated 31.08.2024 in EA No.4/2022 & Ext.P12 order dated
31.08.2024 in EA.No.9/2022 in EP No.123/2003 in OS No.
200/1998 on the file of Addl. Munsif - III, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The petitioners are the Additional defendants Nos.6 to 8 in
OS No.200/1998 filed by the respondent, before the III Addl.
Munsiff Court, Trivandrum. The suit was decreed on 07.08.2022 as
per Ext.P1. Thereafter EP No.123/2003 was filed seeking execution
of the above decree. The Taluk surveyor was appointed by the
execution court and has found that out of the 63 cents of land,
4.398 cents, 2.347 cents and 1.309 cents (total 8.054 cents) of land
was acquired by the Government and the remaining land is 54.946
which is already within the possession of the decree holders. It is
the further contention of the petitioners that the plaintiff has sold 1
cent of property from the A- Schedule. As such, there is nothing to
2024:KER:73470
be executed as the entire extent of property claimed and decreed
are in the possession of the decree holder. It is the contention of
the petitioners that decree holder had pointed out another property
having an extent of 4 cents in another Sy.No.1952/3 and building
therein, which is lying separately with compound wall for which the
petitioners have perfected title by adverse possession, and they are
claiming the same under the guise of execution proceedings. By
Ext.P3, the Taluk surveyor has reported that the entire decree
schedule property remaining after the acquisition proceedings are
in the possession of the petitioners and are lying within a
compound wall and it is not possible to proceed against the same,
the 4 cents of land, which is lying within a separate compound wall
and the decree holder has not established his right over the said
property. It is the contention of the petitioners that the decree
holder has suppressed the fact as to the acquisition of property and
sale of property involved in the execution proceedings. The
execution court by Ext.P6 order has directed the Taluk Surveyor to
aid the Amin of that court to identify the property based on the
descriptions in the title deeds and available old revenue records
2024:KER:73470
including Litho plan so as to effect delivery at the earliest. Though
the said order was challenged by filing OP(C) No.2132/2018, the
same was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is the case of the
petitioners that no identification has taken place till date. In the
said circumstances the petitioners filed EA No.398/2018 to issue
directions to the Amin to file report of identification of decree B
schedule property with report and sketch of surveyor, materials
used for identification and correct measurements of A & B
Schedule before effecting delivery. The said EA was dismissed as
per Ext.P7. Ext.P7 order was challenged by the petitioners by
filing O.P.(C)No.2366/2018 and the same was dismissed as per
Ext.P8 judgment. It is the contention of the petitioners that by
Ext.P8 judgment though the request made by the petitioners in
Ext.P7 was rejected, there is an observation that the Taluk
Surveyor is bound to identify B schedule based on the description
in the title deeds of the 1st respondent and the old survey records
and upon such identification, the court appointed Amin should
effect delivery of the property. The contention of the petitioners is
that the property now being proceeded under the guise of
2024:KER:73470
execution is an entirely different property lying in another survey
number and the extent is also different. In the said circumstances,
EA No.4/2022 was filed to issue necessary direction to the Taluk
surveyor not to survey property which is outside the scope of
decree schedule and EA No.9/2022 was also filed to dismiss the EP
as not executable. By Ext.P10 order, EA No.4/2022 was dismissed
and by Ext.P12 order, EA No.9/2022 was also dismissed. It is
aggrieved by the same that the petitioners have approached this
Court.
3. The contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners is that even though there was a
direction in Ext.P6 to the Taluk Surveyor to identify the property
based on the descriptions in Exts.A2 to A4 title deeds produced
therein and available old revenue records including Litho plan with
the aid of Amin, so as to effect the delivery at the earliest and also
in Ext.P8 judgment, the said exercise has not been undertaken but
the court before proceeding with the delivery of the property.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would
submit that the contention of the petitioners is untenable and the
2024:KER:73470
only intention of the petitioners is to protract the execution of the
decree. It is also submitted that O.S.No.200/1998 was decreed and
the appeal and the second appeal filed against the same were
dismissed on 05.09.2005 and 25.01.2006 respectively. Thereafter
in execution of the decree, the court has issued Ext.P6, whereby a
direction was issued to the Taluk Surveyor to identify the property
based on the descriptions in the title deeds and available old
revenue records including Litho plan. Though the said order was
challenged in OP No.2132/2018, the same was dismissed for non-
prosecution. Later, the execution court has issued Ext.P7 order
dismissing the request of the judgment debtors 6 and 8, who are
the petitioners herein, to direct the Amin to file a report,
identifying the decree B schedule property with the sketch of a
Surveyor, material used for identification and correct
measurements of A & B Schedule properties before effecting
delivery. The said order was also challenged by the petitioners
herein in OP(C)No.2366/2018, but the same was dismissed as per
Ext.P8 judgment, wherein this Court has held that the only
intention of the petitioners is to protract the execution proceedings
2024:KER:73470
by raising untenable contentions and held in paragraph 11 as
follows:
"11. As observed at the outset, this original petition is
another classic example of how the execution proceedings
can be protracted by raising untenable contentions,
capitalising on the inability of officials entrusted with the
task of delivery. It is pertinent to note that, the petitioners
have nowhere stated as to how they came to be in
possession of the property, other than as the tenants
under the 1st defendant. As rightly held by the executing
court, the Taluk Surveyor is bound to identify B schedule
based on the description in the title deeds of the 1st
respondent and the old survey records and upon such
identification, the court appointed Amin should effect
delivery of the property. The contention that the Amin
should be called upon to file a report in court before
effecting the delivery, is nothing but an attempt to open
up another round of litigation and cannot therefore be
countenanced. Moreover, the challenge against Exhibit P4
having failed, petitioners cannot maintain an independent
challenge against Exhibit P6 order. In any event, this is
not a case for this Court to exercise its supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."
It is thereafter that Ext.P9 application was filed seeking a direction
to the Surveyor and executing officer concerned not to survey or
deliver the property that do not have the distinctions of the decree
2024:KER:73470
schedule, which was dismissed as per Ext.P10 order. Ext.P11
application was also preferred wherein a request was made to
dismiss the execution petition, which was declined as per Ext.P12.
On the basis of the same, the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the respondent is that the only intention of the
petitioners is to delay the execution of the judgment and decree,
which was upheld in Appeal and also in the Second Appeal.
5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
6. The basic contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioners is that the delivery of the property is going to be
effected without complying with the directions in Ext.P6 order of
the execution court and the direction in Ext.P8 judgment, wherein
the Taluk Surveyor was directed to identify the property based on
the descriptions in Exts.A2 to A4 title deeds marked in the trial side
and available old revenue records including Litho plan with the aid
of Amin so as to effect the delivery at the earliest. On the specific
assertion made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
that there is non-compliance of the directions in Ext. P6 order and
Ext.P8 judgment issued in OP(C) No.2366/2018, this Court has
2024:KER:73470
called for a report from the execution court regarding the present
stage of the case and also regarding the non-compliance of the
directions. It was reported by the execution court that as per order
dated 14.08.2018 a Taluk Surveyor was deputed to identify the
property based on the available old survey records and the
description of the property in the title deeds, so as to enable the
Amin to deliver decree B schedule property. On 29.08.2018
judgment debtors 6 to 8(the petitioners herein) filed an affidavit
stating that original petition is preferred against the order dated
14.08.2018 and hence case was posted for producing stay order.
Later the petitioners filed OP(C)No.2366/2018 and the said original
petition was dismissed by this Court as per Ext.P8 judgment with
an observation that the Taluk Surveyor is bound to identify B
schedule based on the description in the title deeds of the 1 st
respondent and the old survey records and upon such
identification, the court appointed Amin should effect delivery of
the property. Thereafter the judgment debtors filed EA
No.148/2022 and 406/2022, which were dismissed by the execution
court. Thereafter several execution applications were filed by the
2024:KER:73470
judgment debtors which were also dismissed. Later, the Taluk
Surveyor was deputed to identify the property and to assist Amin to
effect delivery in accordance with the order dated 14.08.2018 and
it was posted for report on 06.09.2024. On 06.09.2024 the counsel
for the judgment debtors produced order of this Court in OP(C)
No.1959/2024 whereby the delivery of the property was deferred
for ten days as copies of the orders impugned in the original
petition was not issued to the petitioners and accordingly the case
was posted to 25.09.2024 for delivery in accordance with Exts.A2
to A4 title deeds marked at the trial side on identification of the
property.
7.The only contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners is that the Taluk Surveyor was not
deputed to identify the property to assist the Amin to effect the
delivery. But it is to be noted that as per order dated 14.08.2018 a
Taluk Surveyor was deputed along with the Amin to identify the
property so that the delivery of the property could be effected. But
only due to the challenge made by the petitioners in various
proceedings and also due to filing of various execution applications
2024:KER:73470
that the said order could not be complied with. In view of the
above, the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel that the
delivery is going to be effected without deputing a Taluk Surveyor
and Amin to identify the property is totally unfounded and only to
be rejected, inasmuch as the court has already issued an order
dated 14.08.2018 for the said purpose and the same could not be
done only due to the challenge made by the petitioners by filing
various original petitions and also by filing various execution
applications in the Execution Petition.
8. Yet another aspect to be considered is that by Ext.P6 order
dated 14.08.2018, the Taluk Surveyor and Amin was deputed to
identify the property. The petitioners challenged the said order in
OP(C) No.2132/2018 and the said original petition was dismissed
for non-prosecution. Later Ext.P7 order was issued in the EA filed
by the petitioners wherein they have requested for a direction to
the Amin to file a report identifying the B schedule property with
sketch of the surveyor, and the said order though challenged
before this Court in OP(C)No.2366/2018, the same was rejected by
Ext.P8 judgment observing that the same is only an attempt to
2024:KER:73470
protract the execution proceedings and since OP(C)No.2132/2018
challenging the order dated 14.08.2018(Ext.P6) is dismissed for
non-prosecution, the petitioners could not make an independent
challenge against Ext.P7 order. After challenging Ext.P6 order
deputing the Taluk Surveyor to assist the Amin in identifying the
property by filing O.P.No.2132/2018 and the said original petition
being dismissed, the contention now taken by the petitioners in the
present original petition that delivery cannot be effected without
identification of the property with the assistance of the Taluk
Surveyor is absolutely without any bona fides and is intended only
to protract the proceedings.
9. Since the only ground raised by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners is that the Taluk Surveyor and the
Amin deputed as per Ext.P6 order has not identified the property
and therefore, the delivery should not be effected, based on the
report submitted by the Execution Court that the court is taking
steps for deputing a Taluk Surveyor and Amin for identifying the
property in accordance with title deeds and old survey records and
for delivery of the property and that the same could not be effected
2024:KER:73470
due to the filing of various original petitions and execution
applications by the petitioners herein, I find absolutely no reason to
interfere with the orders impugned in this original petition, which
are filed without any bona fides and with an intention to delay the
execution proceedings. The execution court shall take further
proceedings in accordance with law, as per Ext.P6 order dated
14.08.2018 as well as the observations made in Ext.P8 in OP(C)
No.2366/2018 and finalise the proceedings without any delay.
The original petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sm/
2024:KER:73470
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2045/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit p1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 07/08/2022
IN OS NO. 200/1998 ON THE FILE OF III
ADDL. MUNSIFF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE EP NO. 123/2003 FILED
RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER BEFORE THE III
ADDL. MUNSIF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND SKETCH DATED
16/09/2014 FILED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR
Exhibit P4 RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REPORT DATED
16/10/2014 OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20/09/2014
FILED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER BEFORE THE
III ADDL. MUNSIF COURT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/08/2018
IN EP NO. 123/2003 IN OS NO. 200/1998 OF
THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF -III, TRIVANDRUM
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/08/2019
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
29/11/2021 IN OP© NO. 2366/2018
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE EA NO. 4/2022 DATED
3/1/2022 IN EP NO. 123/2003 OF THE III
ADDITIONAL MUNSIF COURT, TRIVANDRUM
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/08/2024
IN EA NO. 4/2022 IN EP NO. 123/2003 OF
THE III ADDITIONAL MUNSIF COURT,
TRIVANDRUM
2024:KER:73470
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE EA NO. 9/2022 DATED
3/1/2022 IN EP NO. 123/2003 OF THE III
ADDITIONAL MUNSIF COURT, TRIVANDRUM
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/08/2024
IN EA NO. 9/2022 IN EP NO. 123/2003 OF
THE III ADDITIONAL MUNSIF COURT,
TRIVANDRUM
