IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 291 of 2010(O) ------------------------ EP NO.98/2010 IN OS.1002/2008 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------------------- THANKACHI, W/O.BABU RAJENDRAN, KAMALAVILASAM BUNGLOW, THEKKEVILA P.O., THEKKEVILA CHERI, MUNDACKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.KARUNAKARAN KAMALAVILASAM BUNGLOW, THEKKEVILA P.O., THEKKEVILA CHERI, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691 016. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.291 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT Judgment debtor No.1 in E.P.No.98 of 2010 in O.S.No.1002 of 2008 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Kollam is the petitioner before me. His apprehension is that in the guise of execution of the decree, the building is likely to be partitioned which will have the effect of bringing down that portion of the building belonging to the petitioner. 2. Though respondent sued for fixation of boundary and recovery of possession trial court found on evidence that there is no property belonging to the respondent in the possession of petitioner and accordingly prayer for recovery of possession was disallowed as seen from finding on issue No.2 in the judgment dated January 30, 2010. Learned Munsiff has stated that as per report of the Advocate Commissioner there is no encroachment on the part of petitioner/defendant and hence prayer for recovery of possession is not allowed. At the same time a decree was granted for fixation of boundary between plaint A and B schedule properties along IHGFDC line in Ext.C1, plan appended to the decree. That decree is now being executed. Petitioner filed E.A.No.287 of 2010 stating that attempt is to recover possession of the property in the possession of petitioner and demolish portion of building belonging to him in the guise of execution of the decree. Executing court dismissed that OP(C) No.291/2010 2 application vide order dated August 2, 2010 but, at the same time directed that no harm shall be done to the existing structure. As I understand the decree is only for fixation of boundary along the line referred to above in Ext.C1, plan appended to the decree and execution can only be of the decree as it stands. Executing court has ensured that while executing the decree no harm shall be caused to the existing structure. I do not find any reason for the apprehension now raised by petitioner. No further direction in the matter is required since necessary safeguard has already been made by the executing court in the impugned order. Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks