IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WA.No. 1051 of 2010() --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 35148 OF 2009 DATED 21.12.2009) APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- JOSSY ABRAHAM, S/O.N.A.ABRAHAM, NANDIKKATTU, KANDATHIL, ERUMELI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ROBIN ABRAHAM, S/O.N.A.ABRAHAM, RESIDENT OF NANDIKKATTU KANDATHIL, KANJIRAPALLI, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KATTAPPANA. ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1051 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The dispute is essentially between the appellant, and his brother, the first respondent in the Writ Appeal. Both the appellant and first respondent were engaged in business along with others in partnership. The dispute between them led to filing of civil suit for specific performance before civil court whereunder the first respondent obtained the property that was mortgaged to KFC from the appellant under a decree of the civil court. Admittedly document is also executed pursuant to the judgment and decree of the civil court. Consequently, first respondent applied to KFC for releasing the previous document in respect of the same property and on KFC declining it, the first respondent approached this Court and obtained judgment. The case of the appellant is that the first respondent had given an undertaking to clear the entire business arrears pertaining to the firm and that constituted the basis for execution of the document in W.A. 1051/2010 2 respect of the property in favour of the first respondent. We do not think there is any scope for us to consider the undertaking given by the first respondent to the appellant because these matters do not arise from the judgment of the learned single Judge whereunder the only direction issued to the KFC was to release the title deed of the property in favour of the first respondent, who has obtained title over the very same property through Court orders and document executed based on the same. We do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal because first respondent is already the owner of the property and therefore he is entitled to get previous title deed from the KFC. W.A. is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge. kk W.A. 1051/2010 3