IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 CRP.No. 80 of 2011() ------------------------------- e.p. no.9 of 2010 in OS.70/1996 of PRL.M.C.,KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): -------------------------------- 1. VALSALA .K, D/O.LATE P.C.GOVINDAN NAIR AGED 54 YEARS, THEERTHAM, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. K.RATHNAKARAN, S/O.LATE P.C.GOVINDAN NAIR, AGED 49 YEARS, 'PAVANAVILASAM, P.O.CHIRAKKAL,KANNUR. 3. RATNAVALLY.K,D/O.LATE P.C.GOVINDAN NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS, 'PAVANAVILASAM, P.O.CHIRAKKAL,VALAPATTANAM,KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. K.ROJA,D/O.LATE P.C.GOVINDAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS, THEJUS,THOTTADA PO, KIZHUNNA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. K.LAKSHMANAN, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, SAI RAM, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM DESOM,KANNUR TALUK 2. N.LEELA,W/O.LATE GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS, PROFESSOR, DEEPAK, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM DESOM, P.O.CHIRAKKAL. 3. KUNHAMBU .K, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, AGED 80 YEARS, ABHISHEK, PUTHIYAPARAMBA, P.O. VALAPATTANAM,KANNUR-10. 4. CHIRUTHA, D/O.RAMAN NAIR, AGED 76 YEARS PAVANAVILASAM PALACE PO, VALAPATTANAM,KANNUR-10. 5. NARAYANAN .K, S/O.RAMAN NAIR AGED 74 YEARS, PAVANAVILASAM PALACE PO, VALAPATTANAM,KANNUR-10. 6. MEENA N.K, D/O.LATE GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 39 YEARS, DEEPAK,CHIRAKKAL,KANNUR-11. 7. SONA N.K, D/O.LATE GOPALAN NAIR, DEEPAK, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-11. 8. DEEPAK N.K, S/O.LATE GOPALAN NAIR, DEEPAK, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-11. 9. SAJNA N.K, D/O. LATE GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 39 YEARS, DEEPAK, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-11. 10. SUPPL.K PREMAJA, D/O.SANTHAKUMARI, AGED 65 YEARS, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-11. 11. K.RANJITH KUMAR, S/O.SANTHAKUMARI, AGED 64 YEARS, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM DESOM,KANNUR-11 12. K.MOHANAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS, M.V.HOUSE, AZHIKODE, KANNUR-9. 13. RAJAMMA.K, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN MASTER, VANKULATH VAYAL, AZHIKODE PO,KANNUR. 14. K.RAJAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU NAIR, ABHISHEK, PUTHIYAPARAMBA, P.O.VALAPATTANAM ,KANNUR DISTRICT. 15. HAREENDRAN K, S/O KUNHAMBU NAIR, M.V.HOUSE, AZHIKODE, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE FOR R2,6-9 SRI.R.SURENDRAN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.80 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. With plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9 on record, leaned Munsiff passed a preliminary decree for partition on 26.09.1997. Later a registered partition deed was executed between defendants 1 to 5 on 13.04.2009. Based on that partition there was certain assignments and gifts. Those assignments and gifts, I am told by learned counsel for first respondent-5th defendant, were also taken into account by the learned Munsiff while passing the final decree on 19.07.2008. First Respondent is said to have purchased the share of third defendant also. First respondent filed E.A.No.9 of 2010 for execution of the final decree. In the meantime the first defendant died and his legal representatives (petitioners) came on record. They raised certain objections to the execution of the final decree. The execution court passed the impugned order on January 10, 2011 directing delivery of property to the first respondent. That order is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the C.R.P. No.80 of 2011 -: 2 :- partition deed was executed on 13.04.2000 with first respondent- 5th defendant on record and hence he is not entitled to execute the decree. 3. Learned counsel for first respondent contended that though the partition deed was not produced it is taking into account that partition deed as well as subsequent assignments and gift that the court passed the final decree on 19.07.2008. 4. Assuming that there is anything wrong in the final decree remedy available to the petitioners as legal representatives of deceased first defendant who also was a party to the partition deed is not to resist execution of final decree but to challenge the final decree. Viewed in that line I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv