IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28137 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 88/2008 IN OS.510/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA PETITIONER(S): MADHAVAN, S/O.KUNJAN, AGED 78 YEARS, THANNICHUVATTIL HOUSE, OLAPPURAM KARA, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA SRI.S.ANISH RESPONDENT(S): 1. KAUSALYA, D/O.KUNJAN, THANNICHUVATTIL HOUSE, OLIAPPURAM KARA, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE. 2. THANNICHUVATTIL SREEDHARMA SASTHA KSHETRAM, OLIAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS KSHETRA BHARANA COMMITTEE PRESIDENT KUNJAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN, PARAKANATHIL HOUSE, NORTH PALAKUZHA KARA, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE. 3. PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.DAMODARAN, CHITTAMADATHIL HOSE, OLIAPPURAM KARA, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE. 4. KRISHNAN, S/O.SANKU, CHELAPPURATHU HOUSE, OLIAPPURAM KARA, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE. 5. BIJU, S/O.KUNJAPPAN, CHELAPPURATH HOUSE, OLIAPPURAM KARA, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE. 6. RAJAPPAN, S/O.KUMARAN, KALLOLICKAL HOUSE KIZHAKOMBU KARA, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.28137 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29 th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The writ petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.510 of 1988 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha, which is a suit for partition filed by his sister. He resists the order passed by the Executing Court in E.P.No.88 of 2008 for delivery of the property in terms of the final decree passed by the trial court which has been confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. His contention that the final decree included a property, which does not form part of the joint property and was therefore not partiable has been considered by both the courts below. It has been found that it was he who inducted respondents 2 to 8 in the final decree proceedings as committee members of the temple situated to the property in which he himself is functioning as the Poojary. The argument that without amending the preliminary decree, the properties cannot be delivered over, has no legs to stand on. The final decree court, having allowed the plaint to be amended in accordance with the report and plan submitted by W.P.(c).No.28137 of 2008 2 the Advocate Commissioner, can very well amend the preliminary decree so as to make it conformity with the plaint schedule as amended, in view of Section 153 Cr.P.C. I therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Executing Court. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 29 th day of September, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj