IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Ex.FA.No. 11 of 2011() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA.176/2007 IN OS.29/2000 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------------- R.V.ASWANI (MINOR), D/O.RAJANI, JAYAVILASAM, VALIYAKATTAKAL, ENIKKARA MURI, KARAKULAM VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER RAJANI S.ENIKKARA, THE NEXT FRIEND. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. JACOB ALEXANDER, PADINJARE PUTHEN VEEDU, CHEMPAKASSERY NAGAR, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VIJUKUMAR @ UDAYAN, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, CHEKKAKONAM, KACHANI, KARAKULAM P.O., KARAKULAM VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM) FOR R1 SRI.H.RAMANAN FOR R1 SRI.JAMES JOSE FOR R1 THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ex.F.A.No.11 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The appellant challenges an order passed under Order XXI Rule 58 of the C.P.C. dismissing the petition. The appellant set up a claim that she is the owner of the property under settlement deed executed by the 2nd respondent. The court below found no merit in the contention and dismissed the petition. 2. When the matter came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder would point out that this is a case where the sale was held on 28/08/2006 and it was confirmed on 28/10/2006 and therefore the petition under Order XXI Rule 58 of the C.P.C. is not maintainable. We see merit in the said contention. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that if time is given, she can pay off the amount and the property may be re-conveyed. Today when the matter came up, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder would point out that if he is given Rs.5,16,812/- within a period of two Ex.F.ANo.11 of 2011 2 months from today, the property can be re-conveyed provided expenses are met. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is prepared to pay off a sum of Rs.5,16,812/- and also bear the expenses for the re-conveyance. 4. In such circumstances, while holding that the order is valid, we give time to the appellant to pay off the amount of Rs.5,16,812/- (Rupees five lakhs sixteen thousand eight hundred and twelve only) within a period of two months from today. If the appellant pays an amount of Rs.5,16,812/- directly to the respondent/decree holder within a period of two months from today and also meet the expenses for re-conveyance, the 1st respondent will re-convey the property to the appellant. If the amounts are not paid as aforesaid, necessarily the benefits of this judgment will be forfeited. 5. This appeal is disposed of. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Ex.F.ANo.11 of 2011 3 Ex.F.ANo.11 of 2011 4 Ex.F.ANo.11 of 2011 5 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010