IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 OP (FC).No. 2607 of 2011(R) ---------------------------------------- E.P. NO.22/2010 IN O.P. NO. 570/2003 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. NASSER, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.UMMER, KIZHAKKECHOZHAKUNNEL HOUSE, PERUMPILLICHIRA KARA, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. 2. UMMER, KIZHAKKECHOZHAKUNNEL HOUSE, PERUMPILLICHIRA KARA, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- HAJARA, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.PAREED, PARAYIL (THELLIKUNNEL) HOUSE, MARADY VILLAGE, MARADY KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661. BY THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs OP (FC).No. 2607 of 2011(R) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 07/08/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 08/02/2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED 04/03/2009. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 26/04/2011. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27/06/2011. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27/06/2011. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 16/05/2003. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- O.P(FC).No.2607 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1.Petitioners are judgment debtors under a decree passed by the family court. The plea under article 227 of the Constitution is that on account of Exts.P2 and P7, the decree should be treated as discharged and that there could be no further execution. 2.We have perused the materials as provided to us at the stage of admission. 3. Ext.P7 is an agreement dated 16.5.2003. It is filed as a vivaha mochana karar. There cannot be any such agreement. Yet, we looked into that. We find that the period for performance of OPFC.2607/11 2 the terms therein was till 16.8.2003. Obviously, nothing happened on that basis. 4.We cannot tie down the decree holder to Ext.P7 which had apparently worked itself out on 16.8.2003. 5.On 8.2.2006, Ext.P2 is shown to have been issued by the wife acknowledging receipt of Rs.1,50,000/- as part payment of the decree amount in O.P.570/03. That is not a stamped receipt. We do not express anything on its validity. We do not, at this end, treat it as acknowledgment of receipt of money. We do so because, in our view, matters relating to execution, discharge and satisfaction of a decree are matters which could be agitated before the executing court and it is for that court to decide on such issues. Therefore, leaving the petitioners to agitate any issue as regards part payment or full payment in satisfaction of the decree put in execution, we dismiss this writ petition. We are OPFC.2607/11 3 also not inclined to grant any time from this end, to make payments, while it will be open to the petitioners to seek indulgence of the executing court to adjourn the sale on such conditions as may be satisfactory to that court. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge. kkb.11/8.