IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 658 of 2008() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/07/2008 IN EP 61/2005 IN LAR.176/1994 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN EP. 61/2005 ------------------------------- B.VIJAYALEKSHMI, PISHARATHUPARAMBIL, THURAVOOR SOUTH. BY ADVS.MR.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) MR.A.R.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS AND IST RESPONDENT IN EP. 61/05. -------------------------- 1. VIJAYALEKSHMI AMMA, PISHARATHUPARAMBIL THURAVOOR SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SUNIL KUMAR, PISHARATHUPARAMBIL, THURAVOOR SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SURJITH, PISHARATHUPARAMBIL, THURAVOOR SOUTH, ALAPUZHA. 4. N.GANGADHARAN NAIR, PISHARATHUPARAMBIL, THURAVOOR SOUTH, ALAPUZHA. 5. N.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, PISHARATHUPARAMBIL THURAVOOR SOUTH,ALAPUZHA.(REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER N.GANGADHARAN, -DO- -DO- . 6. KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), NATIONAL HIGHWAY, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. R4 BY ADV. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.1950/2008 IN CRP. NO.658/2008 DISMISSED 24/08/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.658 of 2008 - C --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 O R D E R The revision is directed against the order dated 28.7.2008 in E.P.No.61 of 2005 in L.A.R.No.176 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala. petitioner is the second respondent in the above execution petition. In a land acquisition reference proceeded over the property of the predecessor of respondents 1 to 5 and also of the petitioner, enhanced compensation was awarded by the court. Against the decision of that court there was an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal, the predecessor, the father of the petitioner and the above respondents, passed away. Petitioner and the respondents were brought in by substitution as the legal heirs. The appeal was dismissed confirming the decree passed by the land acquisition court. Pursuant to which the respondents 1 to 5 proceeded for execution of the decree by filing the execution petition in which the petitioner was shown as the second respondent. The second respondent had no right over the compensation awarded under C.R.P.No.658 of 2008 - C 2 the decree was the case of the petitioners for the reason under a gift executed by the father, she had no more right over the rest of his properties. The gift is an onerous one and it was accepted by the second respondent donee and as such though she had been impleaded as one of the legal heirs with the petitioners, she cannot claim any right over the compensation awarded under the decree was their case. The execution court found merit in the case so canvassed by the petitioner. It was held under the impugned order that the second respondent has no right over the compensation awarded under the decree in view of the gift executed in her favour by the father. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. The question emerging for consideration is whether the execution court has competency to determine the disputed question canvassed in the case by the parties. Obviously not, as substantive rights of the parties which was not subject matter of the decree passed was presented for adjudication before the court. If at all any such dispute is raised that question can be C.R.P.No.658 of 2008 - C 3 considered only by a competent forum and not by the execution court, affording opportunity to both sides to establish their respective case. The execution court cannot go behind the decree and it has to execute the decree as it is. Where the decree provided for a right to second respondent also as a legal heir, unless there is any order from a competent forum prohibiting the grant of benefit under the decree to the second respondent, for the reason of the acceptance of the gift executed in her favour by the father, the execution court is not competent to interpret or enter a decision regarding the conditions imposed in the gift deed and hold that the second respondent is not entitled to the compensation under the decree. The impugned order is set aside and the court below is directed to continue the proceedings in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of accordingly. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-