IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 230 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/12/2007 IN E.A.NO.90/07 AND EA 286/06 IN EP.42/97 IN OS.97/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS 3,5 TO 9: --------------------------------------- 1. DEVAKI ANTHARJANAM PADMINI ANTHARJANAM EDAMANA MADOM, MARANADU MURI, VETTIKKAVALA VILLAGE KOTTARAKKARA. 2. EASWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI SREEDEVI, ARUN NIVAS, KADAVU MURIYIL, ERAYIL, KOTTAYAM. 3. SREEDEVI ARUN OF -DO -DO-. 4. SREEDEVI KIRAN OF -DO- -DO-. 5. VASUDEVAN POTTY KRISHNAN POTTY, ANU NIVAS, EDAMANA, MARANADU MURI, VETTIKKAVALA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. 6. DEVAKI ANTHARJANAM MADHAVAN POTTY OF -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT/8TH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS 10 TO 13 ------------------------------------------------------ 1. VETTIKKAVALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VETTIKKAVALA. 2. VASUDEVAN POTTY NARAYANAN POTTY, ANU NIVAS, EDAMANA, MARANADU MURI, VETTIKKAVALA VILLAGE. 3. CHANDRASENA PANCIKER SHAJI, KANAVATH VEEDU, KARIKKAMUTTAM MURI, VETTIKKAVALA VILLAGE. 4. CHANDRASENA PANICKER SALIM OF -DO- -DO-. CRP 230/08 2 5. SADASIVAN, KANAVATHU PADINJATTATHIL VEEDU OF -DO- -DO-. 6. KUTTAN ACHARI GOVINDAN ACHARI, SANAL BHAVAN OF -DO- -DO-. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.230 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara in E.A.No.90/07 and E.A.No.286/06 in E.P.No.42/97 in O.S.No. 97/96. 2. It is a claim petition filed by the Vettikkavala Grama Panchayath under Section 144 and 151 of C.P.C. It is the case of the Panchayath that there is a road comprised in resurvey No.116/1 that has been delivered to the decree holder which is a vested road with the Panchayath and therefore, the property has to be restored back to the possession of the Panchayath. It is true that the petition is filed under Section 144 and 151 of C.P.C. Now really what had happened according to the claimant itself is in execution of the decree property belonging to the Panchayath has been delivered to the decree holder and therefore, the Panchayath seeks redelivery of the property on the ground that it belongs to it. So it is a dispossession of the property and the procedure is contemplated under Order 21 Rule 97 to 101 of the CRP230/08 2 Civil Procedure Code. When a stranger moves an application claiming right over the property, all questions relating to right, title and possession of the property is to be adjudicated just like a title suit and a finding is to be given which becomes appealable under Order 21 Rule 103 of the Civil Procedure Code. Without resorting to the said detailed procedure just because the petition is filed under Section 144 read with Section 151 the court cannot short circuit and enter into a decision. 3. Therefore, I set aside the order passed by the court below and direct the court below to conduct a detailed enquiry as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 101, after permitting both sides to adduce evidence and produce documents and decide the matter in accordance with law. Since, I dispose of the matter in the admission stage, notice may be given to the claimant and the matter be decided afresh. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl