IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 CRP.No. 167 of 2011() --------------------- ( OS.459/1972 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA) .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. PONNAMMA, W/O.SOOLAPANI, PANACKAL PURACKAL, KANJIRAMCHIRA MURIYIL, ARYAD SOUTH VILLAGE, CANAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 007. 2. ANIRUDHAN, S/O.SOOLAPANI, PANACKAL PURACKA,L KANJIRAMCHIRA MURIYIL, ARYAD SOUTH VILLAGE, CANAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 007. 3. BHASKARAN, S/O.VASUKUTTY, PARAMBIL VEEDU FROM PANACKAL PURACKAL, MARARIKULAM, CHETHI P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 4. PURUSHAN, S/O.VASUKUTTY, PANACKAL PURACKAL, KANJIRAMCHIRA MURIYIL, CANAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 007. 5. PUSKARAN, S/O.VASUKUTTY, PARAMBIL VEEDU FROM PANACKAL PURACKAL, MARARIKULAM, CHETHI P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 6. PRABHAKARAN, S/O.VASUKUTTY, PARAMBIL VEEDU FROM PANACKAL PURACKAL, MARARIKULAM, CHETHI P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 7. GANGADHARAN, PARAMBIL VEEDU FROM PANACKAL PURACKAL, MARARIKULAM, CHETHI P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU RESPONDENTS/ADDITIONAL DECREE HOLDERS 2 TO 4 & 8TH JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. DAYANANDAN RUDHRANI, KARANGATTUSSERIL, KANJIRAMCHIRA MURIYIL, ALAPPUZHA. PRESENT ADDRESS: THEKKE THUPPASSERIL, VELLANATHURUTHU, ---------------------------- CHERIYAZHEEKKAL P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DIST. CRP.No. 167 of 2011() ------------------------------ 2. THANKACHAN BHAVANI, AZHIYAKATH, KANJIRAMCHIRA MURIYIL, MANGALAM WARD, THUMPOLY P.O., ALAPPUYZHA. 3. BHASKARAN INDHRANI, KANJIRAMCHIRA MURIYIL, ALAPPUZUA. PRESENT ADDRESS: KOTTINATE PADEETTATHIL, THARAYIL KADAVU, ----------------------------- VALIYAZHEEKKAL P.O, KANDALLOOR, KAYAMKULAM 690 535. 4. NEELAMBHARAN, S/O.VASUKUTTY, PARAMBIL VEEDU FROM PANACKAL PURACKAL, MARARIKULAM, CHETHI P.O., ALAPPUZHA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------- C.R.P. No. 167 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011 ORDER This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 18.03.2011 in E.A.No.29/2011 in E.P.No.162/2003 in O.S.No.459/1972. 2. The petition was filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors in O.S.No.459/1972 before the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha. They suffered a decree which was put in execution. The decree holders filed E.P.No.162/2003 seeking delivery of the decree schedule property having an extent of 52 cents of land. Earlier, the judgment debtors filed objections to the E.P. contending that the E.P. is barred by limitation. The maintainability of the Execution Petition was challenged. The extent of the property is 52 cents of land which is allowed to be recovered by the decree holder under the decree passed in the present suit. It is pointed out in an order passed by this court in CRP No.152/2008 that by a later decree in O.S.No.111/1995 obtained by one Sivadas Haridas, who is not a party to the present suit, the decree in the present suit stood modified. 3. The prayer in the E.P. is to effect delivery of 26 cents of property being the item No.2 property in O.S.No.111/1995, which is C.R.P. No. 167 of 2011 2 one half property of the 52 cents in O.S. 459/1972 after excluding the decree schedule property in O.S.111/1995. If the said prayer is allowed according to the judgment debtor it will be virtually modifying the decree passed by the trial court and interfering with the decree in the light of the later decree passed in O.S.No.111/1995. 4. When the decree holder took out the execution in 459/1972 it was confined to the balance property left after giving effect to the decree in O.S. 111/1995. It was pointed out that the execution proceedings cannot be proceeded with unless a modified decree is produced. The contention was that E.P. is not for the extent of property covered by the decree. The lower court dismissed the petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner very vehementally contended out that the decree in O.S.459/1972 in respect of the 52 cents of land comprised in Survey No.12/A, stood modified by virtue of the order of this court in O.S.111/1995 and therefore, unless the original decree is modified, the execution petition could not have been proceeded with. 6. There is absolutely no merit in the above contention. It is clear from the available records that decree holder in this case had obtained a decree in respect of 52 cents of land. Later it is pointed out that there was another decree in respect of a portion of the C.R.P. No. 167 of 2011 3 property. It was clarified that unless the decree in O.S.No.459/1972 is modified to the extent of the decree covered by O.S.111/1995 execution could not have been proceeded with. Admittedly, the decree holder is not a party to O.S.111/1995. This court only observed that by virtue of the decree in O.S.No.111/1995, the relief available to the decree holder in this case stands modified. The decree in this case being sought to be executed by virtue of the said observation made by this Court. The decree holder now seeks delivery of a lesser portion than what is actually entitled to him as per the decree in O.S.459/1972. That was ordered by the execution court. The decree holder in the present case accepted the decree in O.S..111/1995 and they wanted to enjoy only the balance property after giving effect to the decree in O.S. 111/1995 delivered to them. No grievance can be caused to Judgment debtor herein as there will be a demarcaton of the property at the time of execution of decree. There is no merits in the Revision Petition. Accordingly it is dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln