IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).No. 718 of 2010(O) ------------------------ EA NO.91/10 IN EA.40/10 & EA NO.112/10 IN EA NO.40/10 IN EP NO.31/03 IN OS.95/2001 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------------------- JOSSY ABRAHAM, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.LATE N.A.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT NANDIKKATHUKANDATHIL HOUSE, ERUMELI KARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.NISHIN GEORGE VIJAYABABU SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM (KAIPPANPLACKAL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ROBIN ABRAHAM, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.LATE N.A.ABRAHAM, OF NANDIKKATHUKANDATHIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM NOW RESIDING AT NANDIKKATHUKANDATHIL HOUSE, MEENACHIL P.O., VIA. PALA, PALA, KOTTAAYAM DIST, PIN 686 587. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.718 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT This litigation between the brothers started in the year, 2001 following death of their father, N.A.Abraham who was a leading figure in the field of abkari business as the averments in the petition disclose. Respondent filed O.S.No.95 of 2001 for enforcement of an agreement and other reliefs. Petitioner responded by filing O.S.No.96 of 2001 for dissolution of a partnership and other reliefs. Both the suits were tried together and it ended in dismissal of O.S.No.96 of 2001 and a decree in O.S.No.95 of 2001. As per decree in O.S.No.95 of 2001 petitioner was directed to transfer item No.1 of plaint schedule and the bar licence with the permission of authorities concerned to the respondent on the latter paying the balance sale consideration. Respondent was permitted to get the sale deed executed and bar licence transferred through court in case petitioner failed to do so. Though petitioner challenged judgment and decree in appeal, the same ended in a dismissal. A Special Leave Petition tried before the Apex Court also did not succeed. That was followed by respondent filing petition for execution of the decree. He produced the draft sale deed in the court below. Respondent had undertaken in the trial court that all liabilities outstanding on the land (as on the date of agreement) shall be borne by the respondent but the sale deed executed by the court did not say so. Petitioner challenged approval OP(C) No.718/2010 2 of the draft sale deed in this Court in W.P.(C) No.27797 of 2008. The contentions raised by petitioner in that case were that the decree only provided for transfer of the land alone and not the building thereon, building belonged to the firm and that building cannot included in the sale deed. Another contention was that respondent had undertaken in the trial court that outstanding liabilities will be borne by him but draft sale deed approved by court did not say so. Instead, the draft sale deed said that petitioner has to clear all liabilities and if not, it will bear a charge on other properties belonging to the petitioner. The third contention was that item No.1 property was burdened with other liabilities and the same should also be taken into account in fixing the stamp value and registration fee. Respondent contended that the decree was later amended to take in the building also and regarding liability outstanding on the property is concerned, he stood by his offer. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition by Ext.P11, judgment directing respondent to file application for registration of a correction deed to the effect that all liabilities on the property as on the date of agreement for sale shall be discharged by the respondent (meaning thereby that all liabilities after the date of agreement shall be borne by petitioner). It was also directed that respondent shall file the application within one month from the date of collection of registered sale deed from the Sub Registrar's office. Accordingly a correction deed was executed. Now the contention advanced by petitioner is that liability to the Kerala Financial Corporation was actually paid OP(C) No.718/2010 3 from out of the funds of the firm and not by respondent. He filed E.A.No.91 of 2010 in the court below to bring to the notice of that court that fact and E.A.No.112 of 2010 to call for records from the official receiver. Court below dismissed both the applications vide Exts.P16 and P17, orders. In Ext.P16, court below observed that the request has nothing to do with the correction deed filed in pursuance of judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.27797 of 2008 and that this Court had made it clear that no further application from the side of petitioner shall be entertained in respect of the decree already executed with the registration of sale deed. E.A.No.112 of 2010 also was dismissed in the same line vide Ext.P17, order. Those Orders are under challenge. Learned counsel has reiterated the contentions before me. 2. So far as execution of correction deed is concerned, in Ext.P11, judgment this Court observed accepting the offer made by respondent in the trial court that all liabilities on the property as on the date of agreement for sale shall be met by the respondent. It is accordingly that the correction deed was executed. Relief sought vide the applications referred above has nothing to do with the execution of sale deed or the correction deed. Moreover, this Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.27797 of 2008 by Ext.P11, judgment observed that no further application from judgment debtor (petitioner) will be entertained in OP(C) No.718/2010 4 respect of the decree already executed with registering of the sale deed and that on no account petitioner shall be allowed to continue any further proceeding. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks