IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9890 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.216/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT.,VADAKKANCHERRY .................... PETITIONER: --------------- ASIYA, D/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, MOOCHIKKADAN HOUSE, VENNOOR.P.O, VATTAPPARA DESOM, TALAPPILLU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT: --------------- KUNJAPPAN, S/O.RAMAN, KALIANDHANATH HOUSE, ELANAD VILLAGE AND DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.9890 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 07th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P4, order dated 29-08-2002 on E.A.No.65 of 2000 under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Petitioner is the daughter of respondent No.2, judgment debtor against whom respondent No.1 obtained a decree for realisation of money charged on the property. Petitioner claimed that as per Ext.A1, agreement dated 09-03-1989 executed between herself and her father(respondent No.2). She got possession of the suit property on 09-03-1989 and later respondent No.2 executed Ext.A2, settlement deed dated 11-11- 1997 in her favour (during pendacy of the suit between respondent Nos.1 and 2). She claimed to be in independent possession of the suit property and that property is not liable to be delivered over to respondent No.1. That objection was overruled by the executing court as per Ext.P4, order. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner is in independent possession of the suit property, she has acquired title as per Ext.A2 and hence she is not liable to be dispossessed. 2. It is not disputed that respondent No.1 has obtained a W.P.C.No.9890 of 2010 : 2 : decree for realisation of money against respondent No.2, father of petitioner charged on the property involved. The suit was filed in the year 1996. Ext.A2, settlement deed comes during pendancy of the suit between respondent Nos.1 and 2. The document produced to prove prior possession is the agreement dated 09-03-1989. That is not a registered agreement. Admittedly the said document is allegedly executed by respondent No.2 in favour of his daughter, petitioner. In the evidence petitioner stated as PW1 that the adjascent property belong to respondent No.2 and that she got possession of the middle portion of the property. She claimed that she got possession of the property on the date of document. Then she stated that she got possession one month before the document. She also admitted that Amin has evicted respondent No.2 and family from the property in their possession. Executing court found that petitioner has no independent possession of the property and that she is claiming title from respondent No.2 as per pendente lite transfer. Claimant has to show possession and right over the property independently of the judgment debtor. Petitioner is a pendente lite transferee. She has not proved her case of prior possession. The unregistered agreement for sale alone is not sufficient. Hence her case of previous possession from her father, W.P.C.No.9890 of 2010 : 3 : respondent No.2 was not accepted by the executing court. I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P4, order. Resultantly this petition fails and it is dismissed . (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-