IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19811 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AS.62/2003 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA OS.824/2001 of I ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SAJITHA S.V., D/O.VILASINI, AGED 22, HINDU, CHEMMANVILA, NADUGTHATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, KARUMKULAM DESOM. 2. SOFIA S.V., D/O.VILASINI, AGED 21, RESIDING AT NADUTHATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, KARUMKULAM DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PHILIP S/O.CHARLES, CHRISTIAN, AGED 37, RESIDING AT KUTTANAINATHIL VEEDU, ARUMANOOR DESOM, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA 695 525. 2. SUKUMARAN NADAR, S/O.KESAVAN NADAR, AGED 52 YEARS, CHEMMANVILA, NADUTHATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, KARUMKULAM VILLAGE, KARURKULAM DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA 695121. 3. VILASINI, W/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHEMMANVILA, NADUTHATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, KARUMKULAM VILLAGE, KARURKULAM DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA 695121. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19811 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioners are claim petitioners in E.A.No.553 of 2010 in O.S.No.824 of 2001 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-I, Neyyattinkara. That suit was filed by respondent No.1 for a declaration and recovery of possession on the strength of a deed of mortgage followed by a deed of sale said to be executed in his favour by respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 is the mother of petitioners and wife of respondent No.2 who was impleaded as a defendant in the suit. She contended that the suit properties were settled in favour of petitioners and herself by respondent No.2as per Ext.A3, settlement/gift deed No.121 of 1993. Later, respondent No.3 released her right in the suit property in favour of petitioners. It is thereafter that respondent No.2 is said to have created documents in favour of respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 contended that the suit is not maintainable and that respondent No.1 is not entitled to any relief over the suit property. Trial court accepted that contention and dismissed the suit. Respondent No.1 preferred A.S.No.62 of 2003. Learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara took the view that Ext.A3 which is a gift deed the execution of which is denied by respondent No.1 is not proved by respondent No.3 in the manner provided under law and hence ignoring Ext.A3 respondent No.1 was given a decree for recovery of possession. In the course of execution petitioners approached the executing court with a claim petition, a petition for WP(C) No.19811/2010 2 stay of execution proceedings and a petition to advance hearing of the said applications. Grievance of the petitioners is that no stay was granted by the executing court and instead applications are posted on 25.06.2010. In the meantime, steps are being taken to execute the decree and deliver possession of the property to respondent No.1. The prayer in the circumstance is to direct executing court to dispose of the applications preferred by the petitioners and to keep the execution proceedings in abeyance until the said applications are disposed of. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated, I direct the learned Additional Munsiff-I, Neyyattinkara to dispose of the application for stay preferred by the petitioners at the earliest. In the meantime, delivery proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S.No.824 of 2001 will stand in abeyance for a period of three weeks from this day. Learned Munsiff shall dispose of the application for stay within the said period. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks