IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37239 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.6/1984 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. CHELLAMMA, W/O. MADHAVANANDAN, MADHAVILAKAM, KEEZHATTINGAL DESOM, MEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JOY PRASAD, S/O. MADHAVANANDAN, MADHAVILAKAM, KEEZHATTINGAL DESOM, MEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JYOTHI,D/O.MADHAVANANDAN, MADHAVAVILAKAM, KEEZHATTINGAL DESOM, KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE RREP. BY P/A SHAJI, S/O.THANKAPPAN,AJITHAMANDIRAM,KUTTIKKADU.P.O, KADAKKAL, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- SANTHOSHKUMAR, S/O. MADHAVANANDAN, KULATHINKARA VEEDU, THENAVILA VEEDU, KEEZHATINGAL REP. BY HIS WIFE AND POWER OF ATORNEY SMT. OMANA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37239 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the judgment debtors in O.S.No.6 of 1984 on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal. Respondent was the plaintiff in the above suit. Suit was one for declaration and partition which was decreed in favour of the respondent. That decree was subsequently challenged by filing another separate suit. Respondent/plaintiff had claimed that he is also a son of late Madhavanandan and thereby entitled to a share in his estate. The judgment debtors/defendants are the wife and children of late Madhavanandan. The suit claim was resisted by the defendants disputing also paternity of the plaintiff. Pursuant to a decree passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff the second suit was filed by another son of late Madhavanandan, who was not a party in the suit, impeaching that decree as not binding on him. Second suit was also dismissed. In the previous suit, O.S.No.6 of 1984, parties have gone up to the apex court and the challenges against the decree passed by the trial court had been negatived. In execution of the decree passed in the above suit the property allotted to the respondent/plaintiff had been delivered over. Subsequently, he W.P.(C).No.37239 of 2009 - O 2 filed a petition claiming mesne profits awarded under the decree. Since the amount due as mesne profits was not deposited by the judgment debtors a property belonging to them was attached and later put to sale. Now steps are taken for delivery of the property covered by the sale. At that stage, petitioners have approached this Court with this writ petition seeking the issue of a writ/direction/order not to deliver over the property and permit them to deposit the entire amount due to the decree holder. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find that this Court in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction cannot issue a direction/order as canvassed for, after the sale had become final and conclusive, apparently, with no challenge against such sale, at the stage when delivery of the property is ordered. The petitioner's request for avoidance of such delivery by deposit of the amount due, after sale, cannot be entertained. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-