Kerala High Court
* Uthuppu Joseph vs The State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:70708
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 1ST ASWINA, 1947
FAO NO. 247 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2015 IN E.A.NO.61 OF 2004 IN
E.P.NO.174 OF 1989 IN LAR NO.147 OF 1984 OF SUB COURT,
THODUPUZHA
APPELLANTS/DECREE HOLDER/COUNTER PETITIONERS:
1 UTHUPPU JOSEPH (DIED)
AGED 89 YEARS, S/O.UTHUP, VADAKKE MUTTAPPILLIL
HOUSE, NADUKANI KARA, KEERAMPARA VILLAGE, NADUKANI
P.O., PIN CODE-686691, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 ADDL.A2:JOHN JOSEPH ,
S/O. UTHUP JOSEPH,AGED 63 YEARS,RESIDING AT
VADAKKE PUTTAPPILLIL HOUSE, NADUKANI KARA,
KEERAMPARA VILLAGE, NADUKANI PO, KOTHAMANGALAM
TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT .
3 ADDL .A3: MARY VARGHESE.
D/O. UTHUP JOSEPH,AGED70 YEARS RESIDING AT VADAKKE
PUTTAPPILLIL HOUSE, NADUKANI KARA, KEERAMPARA
VILLAGE, NADUKANI PO, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
4 ADDL.A4:JOSEPH .V..J.,
S/O. UTHUP JOSEPH,AGED 68, RESIDING AT VADAKKE
2025:KER:70708
F.A.O. No.247 of 2015
-: 2 :-
PUTTAPPILLIL HOUSE, NADUKANI KARA, KEERAMPARA
VILLAGE, NADUKANI PO, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
5 ADDL.A5:V.J. THOMAS,
S/O. UTHUP JOSEPH,AGED 65, RESIDING AT VADAKKE
PUTTAPPILLIL HOUSE, NADUKANI KARA, KEERAMPARA
VILLAGE, NADUKANI PO,KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT .
6 ADDL.A6:ELDHO JOSEPH ,
S/O. UTHUP JOSEPH,AGED 61, RESIDING AT VADAKKE
PUTTAPPILLIL HOUSE, NADUKANI KARA, KEERAMPARA
VILLAGE, NADUKANI PO, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
7 ADDL.7:VARGHESE JOSEPH,
S/O. UTHUP JOSEPH, AGED 59, RESIDING AT VADAKKE
PUTTAPPILLIL HOUSE, NADUKANI KARA, KEERAMPARA
VILLAGE, NADUKANI PO, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT
ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 7
VIDE ORDER DATED 8/7/2025 IN IA 1/2025.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.ELDHO
SRI.ANEESH JAMES
SHRI.JIJO THOMAS
RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR/PETITIONER:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI
DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685603.
ADV.S. RENJITH, SPL GP
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
23.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:70708
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
F.A.O. No.247 of 2015
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
A land acquisition award is under execution. As per the
order impugned, the execution sale was set aside and the
decree holder was directed to deposit an amount of
Rs.59,548.39/-, which is allegedly the excess amount paid.
The decree holder is in appeal.
2. In execution of the land acquisition decree,
property of the judgment debtor-State was sold in auction
and was purchased by the decree holder. The State approached
this Court in F.A.O.No.265 of 2009. As is evident from
paragraph 3 of the judgment in F.A.O.No.265 of 2009, on the
intervention of this Court, the decree holder agreed to be
satisfied with payment of money towards decree debt and was
willing to forego the sale. The judgment debtor-State
2025:KER:70708
submitted before this Court that the amounts covered by the
decree has been remitted in the court. As per the judgment
dated 29.05.2015, this Court set aside the order closing the
execution petition, and restored the execution petition back
to file. The execution court was directed to arrive at the
amount payable and to ensure satisfaction of the decree.
Upon such satisfaction, the sale was ordered to be set
aside. The relevant direction reads thus;
"The court below is directed to take up the execution proceedings and hear
the learned Government Pleader and the counsel for the decree holder at
that end and reconcile the accounts and decide as to whether there is any
excessive remittance by the State. If so, appropriate orders ought to be
passed in that regard. Otherwise, the court below shall ensure that the
decree is satisfied by the State by making necessary remittance.
Thereupon, the sale that stands confirmed in favour of the decree holder
shall be set aside through consequential orders, which shall be passed by
the court below; more particularly, because satisfaction of the decree has
been recorded and E.P stands closed. For technical purposes, we also set
aside the order closing the execution petition and the execution petition
shall stand restored before the court below for appropriate conclusion of
proceedings. Parties are directed to mark appearance before the court
below on 26.6.2015."
2025:KER:70708
3. Pursuant to the above, the execution court called
for calculation statements from the decree holder and the
judgment debtor. The judgment debtor-State raised a
contention that the sale was confirmed on 25.10.2004 and
that an application for delivery was filed only on
28.10.2009 and that the decree holder is not entitled for
interest during the said period.
4. The execution court accepted the said contention,
calculated the decree debt accordingly, and passed the
impugned order.
5. We have heard Shri.K.C. Eldho, the learned counsel
for the appellants-decree holders and Shri.S. Renjith, the
learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
6. F.A.O.No.265 of 2009 was at the instance of the
judgment debtor-State. As is evident from the judgment dated
29.05.2015 in the F.A.O, the judgment debtor-State never
raised a contention that the decree holder is not entitled
for interest for the period from 25.10.2004 to 28.10.2009.
As is evident from the judgment in F.A.O.No.265 of 2009, the
2025:KER:70708
judgment was practically on a concession by the decree
holder that he does not want the property of the State, but
his decree debt should be satisfied. It is to enable such
payment and to have the sale set aside, that the execution
petition was restored to file. If the judgment debtor-State
had a contention that the decree holder is not entitled for
interest for the period from 25.10.2004 to 28.10.2009, the
same ought to have been raised at that point of time. Not
only that the judgment debtor had not raised such contention
but, took the advantage of the concession given by the
decree holder. Thereafter, the judgment debtor-State is not
entitled to urge the contention that the decree holder is
not entitled for interest during the period mentioned above.
The amount due to the decree holder is liable to be re-
worked.
7. We do also notice that, pursuant to the execution
sale, the decree holder had remitted the stamp value. The
decree holder is entitled for the said amount also. The
judgment in FAO 265 of 2009 was specific that it is upon
2025:KER:70708
satisfaction of the decree by the State, that the sale could
be set aside.
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The order impugned
is set aside. The execution petition will stand revived and
restored back to file. The execution court shall cause fresh
calculation to be made, in the light of this judgment and as
directed in the judgment in F.A.O.No.265 of 2009, and the
sale can be set aside on ensuring that the entire decree is
satisfied.
Parties to appear before the execution court on
06.10.2025.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
yd
2025:KER:70708
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
25/08/2009 IN WP(C) NO.27018 OF 2009 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
29/05/2015 IN FAO NO. 265 OF 2009 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AS ON
22/09/2015
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY
THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR FOR THE JUDGMENT
DEBTOR
Annexure A5 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN
E.A.NO. 61 OF 2004 IN E..P.NO 174 OF
1989 IN LAR NO. 147 OF 1984
