IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 14650 of 2009(O) ---------------------------------------- OS.444/1980 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.E.PADMANABHAN, S/O.(LATE) KUNJIRAMAN, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT DESHABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.BINDU SMT.C.G.AJITHA SMT.D.SARITHA SMT.M.K.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. BEERAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU MUHAMMED, VALIYAKATH VEETTIL, THRIKKANARVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. 2. INDIAN BANK, SHANMUGHAM ROAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU SRI.S.KANNAN SRI.A.B.XAVIER R2 BY ADV.SRI.EASWARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.14650/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SALE DATED 25/3/94 OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. P2 COPY OF THE E.A.1104/2000 IN E.P.NO.213/92 IN OS NO.444/80 P3 COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT WITH THE SKETCH ANNEXED DATED 27/11/2001 P4 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT P5 COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF WITNESS P.A.LENIN P6 COPY OF THE TITLE DEED P7 COPY OF THE TITLE DEED RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.6100/1994 OF S.R.O., ERNAKULAM DATED 14/12/1994. R1(B) COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5464/93 OF S.R.O. ERNAKULAM DATED 15/12/1993 R1(C) COPY OF THE SALE PROCLAMATION DATED 19/7/93 IN E.P.NO.213/1992 IN OS NO.444/80 ON THE FILES OF HON'BLE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. R1(D) COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 25/6/1996 FILED BEFORE HON'BLE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM IN E.A.NO.912/95 IN E.A.NO.415/94 IN E.P.NO.213/92 IN OS NO.444/80 R1(E) COPY OF THE SKETCH FILED BEFORE HON'BLE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM IN E.A.NO.912/95 IN E.A.NO.415/94 IN E.P.NO.213/92 IN OS NO.444/80. R1(F) COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 13/9/1996 FILED BEFORE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM IN E.A.NO.911/95 IN OS NO.444/80 R1(G) COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL OBJECTION DATED 1/11/96 FILED BEFORE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM IN E.A.NO.911/95 IN OS NO.444/80 R1(H) COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 27/11/2001 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM IN E.A.NO.911/95 IN EA NO.415/94 IN EPNO.213/92 IN OS NO.444/80. R1(I) COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM IN E.A.NO.911/95 IN E.A.NO.415/94 IN EP NO.213/92 IN OS NO.444/80. 2/- 2- WP(C)NO.14650/2009 R1(J) COPY OF THE SKETCH DATED 4/7/2007 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM IN E.A.NO.415/94 IN O.S.NO.444/80. R1(K) COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PWI IN EA NO.415/94 IN OS NO.444/80 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. R1(L) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/7/2006 OF THE HON'BLE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM IN EA NO.110/00 IN EA NO.415/94 IN EP NO.213/92 IN OS NO.444/80. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.14650 OF 2009 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 JUDGMENT The dispute between the petitioner and the lst respondent is settled. By interim order dated 28/6/2011 this Court recorded the terms of compromise. Now it is reported that the sale deed as agreed has been executed and possession of the property was handed over to the lst respondent. In the light of the above- said settlement, no further orders are necessary. Writ Petition is closed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv. -2- W.P(C).No.14650/2009 -3- W.P(C).No.14650/2009 HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 14650 OF 2009 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011 O R D E R Writ petitioner is the auction purchaser in an auction sale conducted by the Sub Court, Ernakulam in O.S.No.444/80 wherein Indian Bank was the decree holder. The decree holder bank obtained a decree in their favour for the money due from the defendant in the suit. Petitioner bid the property in court auction. The court issued sale certificate on 25/3/1994. The 2 cents of land for which the sale certificate was issued, is the northern portion and the southern portion of 1 ½ cents is at present owned by the lst respondent. On measurement it was found that the exact extent covered by the sale certificate is 1.720 cents. The grievance of the petitioner/auction purchaser is that the lst respondent has constructed a compound wall obstructing ingress and egress to the aforesaid 1.720 cents. The Commissioner measured the southern property owned by the lst respondent and it was found that the exact extent is 1.632 cents which includes the passage to the northern 1.720 cents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the lst -4- W.P(C).No.14650/2009 respondent blocked the entry to the northern 1.720 cents by constructing a compound wall and therefore he filed I.A.No.1104/2000 in E.P.No.213/92 in the suit for removing the obstruction on the side of the lst respondent and to effect delivery of the property which he bid in court auction. The execution court by order dated 28th July, 2006 ordered that the court is inclined to effect the delivery of the property by deputing an Amin, if any of the neighbour allow an entry into the property. 2. The petitioner submits that he had purchased the property of the judgment debtor in court auction only on the faith that the property will be delivered to him with the pathway, which is in existence at the time of court auction. It is submitted that the auction was conducted in the year 1994 and the petitioner was not in a position to obtain delivery of the property and the existing pathway leading to the property and therefore he approached this Court for appropriate reliefs. 3. This Court summoned the parties in order to explore the possibility of settlement. The parties appeared in chambers for more than one occasion. During discussion the parties agreed to settle the disputes between them. By the terms of compromise, the petitioner agreed to sell the property to the ls respondent and the lst respondent agreed to purchase the same. It follows that the -5- W.P(C).No.14650/2009 petitioner agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the lst respondent on receipt of `7,00,000/-. The compromise was recorded by this Court in the orders passed on 17/1/2011 and 8/4/2011. The lst respondent is ready to pay `7,00,000/- as agreed. Before payment, the lst respondent demanded the petitioner to hand over possession certificate, encumbrance certificate and land tax receipt. The petitioner approached Elamkulam Village Officer for remitting basic tax. It is stated that the Village Officer refused to accept the land tax stating that the land tax cannot be accepted without delivery of the property. 4. Before ordering delivery by the execution court, the matter came up for consideration before this Court by filing this writ petition. In this writ petition the parties agreed to compromise the matter and by the said compromise the petitioner has to execute the sale deed in favour of the lst respondent. In view of the compromise, the formal delivery of the property is not necessary. In fact delivery was ordered on 12/7/1994, 28/7/1995 and 27/10/2000. Delivery could not be effected due to the obstruction raised by the lst respondent. Now the obstructor/lst respondent settled the dispute and agreed to purchase the property. Before the execution of the sale deed, the vendor is required to effect mutation and has to pay land tax. The petitioner shall apply for mutation of -6- W.P(C).No.14650/2009 the land covered by the sale certificate and on such an event, the Village Officer shall effect mutation of the property in the name of the petitioner and shall receive land tax and shall issue receipt for payment of land tax. Post on 15/7/2011. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.