IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1125 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRP.658/2008 Dated 24/08/2009 EP 61/05 IN LAR 176/94 OF THE SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 --------------------------------------- 1. N.GANGADHARAN NAIR, PISHARATHUPARAMBIL, THURAVOOR SOUTH,ALAPPUZHA. 2. N.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, PISHARATHUPARAMBIL,THURAVOOR SOUTH,ALAPPUZHA. (REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER N.GANGADHARAN,PISHARATHUPARAMBIL, THURAVOOR SOUTH,ALAPPUZHA). BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS/REVN.PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,2,3 & 6 ------------------------------------------------------ 1. B.VIJAYALEKSHMI, PISHARATHUPARAMBIL,THURAVOOR SOUTH,ALAPPUZHA. 2. VIJAYALEKSHMI AMMA, PISHARATHUPARAMBIL,THURAVOOR SOUTH,ALAPPUZHA. 3. SUNIL KUMAR, PISHARATHUPARAMBIL,THURAVOOR SOUTH,ALAPPUZHA. 4. SURJITH, PISHARATHUPARAMBIL,THURAVOOR SOUTH,ALAPPUZHA. 5. KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A), NATIONAL HIGHWAY,CHERTHALA,REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.1125 of 2009 in C.R.P.No.658 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 25th November, 2009 ORDER Petition is filed to review the order dated 24.8.2009 rendered by this court in C.R.P.No.658 of 2008. Petitioners are respondents 4 and 5 in the revision and they seek review of the order passed in the revision setting aside the order of the court below with direction to continue the proceedings in accordance with law. Challenge raised in the revision was against the order of the execution court that the first respondent, revision petitioner, had no right over the compensation awarded under the decree in lieu of a gift deed executed by her father in her favour. That was the case canvassed by the present review petitioners and the others, the sisters and brothers of the revision petitioners, contending that she has no right to claim a share of the compensation. The acquired property originally belonged to the father of the parties and during the pendency of the appeal with reference to the dispute over the enhanced compensation awarded by the reference court, the father passed away and his legal representatives were brought in on record. After disposing of the appeal, in the execution proceedings, the respondents in the revision R.P.No.1125/09 - 2 - proceeded for realising the enhanced compensation awarded under the decree canvassing a case that the revision petitioner who was shown as the second respondent in the execution petition was disentitled to claim any share in the compensation as the father had executed gift deed in her favour. Execution Court passed an order accepting the case of the petitioners in the execution petition, the respondents in the revision petition. Challenge canvassed in the revision by the revision petitioner (2nd respondent in the execution petition) against the order of the execution court was upheld by this court as the execution court cannot determine substantive rights of the parties which was not subject matter of the decree sought to be executed. Now, the review of that order has been filed by two among the respondents in the revision contending that the order passed by this court suffers from very serious errors of law and fact. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the view taken by this court in the order that the execution court is incompetent to interpret or enter a decision regarding the conditions imposed in the gift deed and hold that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to the compensation under the decree unless there is an order from a competent forum prohibiting the grant of benefit under the decree to R.P.No.1125/09 - 3 - the 2nd respondent (revision petitioner) is legally not correct and it goes against the settled proposition of law as laid down by the apex court that such question can be gone into under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel relied on Gangabai Gopaldas Mohata v. Fulchand [ (1997) 10 S.C.C. 387] to buttress the submissions so canvassed. I do not find any merit in the submission made by the counsel. First and foremost the ground canvassed as aforesaid for review can never be considered as an error apparent on the face of the record even assuming that there is such an error in the order. What is sought to be attempted by way of review is a challenge against the order passed by this court, questioning its correctness, relying on a decision of the apex court. The decision has no applicability to the facts of the case. What was considered in that decision of the apex court is only to the effect that where a person claiming to be a representative of the decree holder's interest, whether he be a legal heir or a representative of the deceased decree holder in any capacity by operation of law, and if a dispute of his competency to representation is raised, the executing court has to resolve the dispute for the execution of the decree. In the present case the petitioners in the execution petition, including R.P.No.1125/09 - 4 - the present review petitioners, wanted to exclude the revision petitioner, admittedly their own sister, who had been impleaded in the land acquisition appeal as one among the legal representatives of the claimant, father of the parties, on his death pending appeal, from having a share in the compensation over the acquired land for the reason that the father had executed a gift deed in her favour. The question whether under the gift deed she was disentitled to claim compensation is not a matter which can be gone into by the execution court, but only by a competent forum as provided by law. Such a question can never be canvassed before the execution court by one or the other legal representatives of the deceased decree holder as against another legal representative as if it was a matter relating to a dispute as to who are all the legal representatives to claim over the compensation awarded in the decree. The revision petitioner is a legal heir of the deceased decree holder and as such a legal representative as contemplated under law. Whether that legal heir can be excluded or not from sharing the compensation by virtue of the gift deed executed in her favour by the father is not a matter that can be gone into by the execution court. Review Petition is totally devoid of any merit and it is dismissed with the cost of the first R.P.No.1125/09 - 5 - respondent revision petitioner quantified at Rs.1000/-(Rs. One Thousand only). srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE