IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 Ex.SA.No. 6 of 2009() --------------------- AS.266/2003 of III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.5/1980 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL (EA 391/01 IN EP 95/99) .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN EA.(NON PARTIES TO SUIT) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAHADA BEEVI,D/O.JALALUDHEEN, NOW RESIDING AT 11/118,MISSION COLONY, MANAMBOOR PERINKULAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ABDUL GAFOOR,S/O.JALALUDHEEN, MIRAJ COTTAGE,MULAMUTTATHU, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER (PLAINTIFF) -------------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL VAHAB,S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA LABBA, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,MUTTUKONATHU, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE. THIS EXECUTION SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO. 1649 OF 2009 IN EX.SA NO. 6 OF 2009 DISMISSED SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID,JUDGE 27.7.2009 HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- Ex.S.A.No.6 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The appellants are the claim petitioners in E.A No. 391/2001 in E.P. No. 95/1999 in O.S. No. 5/1980 on the file of Sub court Attingal. The Execution Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 266 of 2003. The claim petition was dismissed by the trial court and confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. Hence the Execution Second Appeal. The parties hereinafter referred to as appellants and respondent as arrayed in the Execution Second Appeal. 2. The petition schedule property is 20 Cents of land. The appellants alleged that the petition schedule property originally belonged to the South Indian L.M.S. Church. The Church authorities had leased out the Petition schedule property to one Joshua for one year on pattam arrangement. The said Joshua transferred the said property to the respondent and thus he became the lessee of that property. Thereafter the respondent transferred the property to one Kunjamma. The said Kunjamma was paying rent to the respondent. Meanwhile the respondent gave the property to the 1st appellant in 1977 after receiving Rs. 4,000/- and since then the 1st appellant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The said amount was paid through the 1st appellant's husband Sri.Mohammed Hassan. During 1977 the relationship between Ex.S.A. No. 6 of 2009 -2- the 1st appellant and her husband was strained. Out of the 20 Cents of property the 1st appellant gave 10 cents of property to her brother who is the 2nd appellant herein. During 1978 the 1st appellant's husband had filed application for getting patta before the Land tribunal without the consent and knowledge of the 1st appellant. After getting patta in favour of the 1st appellant's husband, he transferred his right obtained as per patta, in favour of the 1st appellant. Meanwhile the respondent as plaintiff filed O.S. No. 5/1980 against the said Mohammed Hassan and Kunjamma for recovery of possession of the petition schedule property. The trial court passed a decree allowing the plaintiff/ respondent to recover the property from the aforesaid defendants. 3. According to the appellants the respondent in turn transferred the property to one kunjamma on lease,and thereafter the respondent gave the property to the 1st appellant in 1977 after receiving Rs.4,000/- which was paid through 1st appellant's husband who is the 2nd defendant in the Suit. The 1st appellant also claimed that there were documents to show that she got the property from her husband; but not produced any documents to substantiate her claim. So the inference that can be drawn from the facts circumstances and evidence of this case is that the appellants are claiming title through the 2nd defendant in the suit and they have no independent title over the petition schedule property. Therefore the dismissal of the claim petition by the trial court and the confirmation of the Ex.S.A. No. 6 of 2009 -3- same by lower appellate court are justifiable and cannot be assailed in this Execution Second Appeal. No questions of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. There is no scope for invoking this Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 of the C.P.C. This appeal fails and accordingly dismissed in limine. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE es HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------- Ex.S.A. No. 6 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 27th July 2009