IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19792 of 2008(F) -------------------------------------------- (O.S.NO.571/99 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA) PETITIONER: -------------------- BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.KUMARAN NAIR, AGED 71 YEARS, MANTHIYIL, ERAMALLOOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.S.SMITHA (PARAKKAL) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. T.B.UNNIKRISHNAN, KAMALA NIVAS, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE. 2. R.REJITHA, W/O.BABURAJ PAKKALLIL HOUSE, VANDANAM PANCHAYAT , ALAPUZHA. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO. 19792 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner who is not a party to O.S.571/1999 on the file of Munsiff Court, Cherthala filed E.A.505/2007 under section 151,152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure to correct the survey number shown in the sale certificate and the delivery receipt and also to intimate that fact to Sub Registrar Office. Case of the petitioner is that judgment debtor had no right in any portion of the property in survey No.26/2/4/1 which belongs absolutely to petitioner but in the sale certificate and delivery kaichit the survey number is wrongly shown as survey No.26/2/4/1 instead of 26/2/1 and therefore the mistakes are to be corrected. Under Ext.P8 order learned Munsiff dismissed the petition holding that neither Section 151 nor 152 nor 153 applies. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of W.P.(C)19792/2008 2 India to quash Ext.P8 order passed by the learned Munsiff. 2. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P8 order warranting interference. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that because of the fraud committed, survey number of the petitioner was shown in the sale certificate and the delivery kaichit and there is an entry in the Sub Registrar Office with regard to the attachment of that property and thereby a cloud is cast on the title of the petitioner which is to be removed and in the absence of any other provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, learned Munsiff should have allowed the petition invoking the power provided under section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. I do not find why the petitioner filed this petition. If a property is sold in court auction sale and purchased by an auction purchaser and sale certificate is issued, the right which the W.P.(C)19792/2008 3 auction purchaser could claim is only that right which the judgment debtor was having in that property. If the judgment debtor has no right or title over the property, the auction purchaser will not get any right and cannot claim any right over the property. In such circumstance, petitioner need not have any apprehension that his right is effected for the sole reason that survey number of his property is included in the sale certificate. Even if petitioner apprehends that a cloud is cast on his title, he is at liberty to institute the suit for declaration of his title. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006