IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 W.P(C).No. 32448 of 2008(K) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 22/2008 IN O.S.182/1983 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ T.K. RADHAKRISHNAN, RAJESH BHAVAN, KALLUMTHAZHAM P.O., KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM) SRI.H.RAMANAN SRI.JAMES JOSE RESPONDENTS : ----------------------- 1. P.V. SANTHADEVI, POOVANGAL VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERRY, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM. 2. SUNANDA, W/O. DEVARAJAN, DO.DO. 3. D.MANOJ, S/O. DEVARAJAN, DO. DO 4. D.SARITHA, D/O. SUNANDA, DO.DO. 5. JEEJADEVI, W/O.SOMARAJAN, DO.DO. 6. SOMI SOMARAJAN, D/O. JEEJADEVI, DO.DO. 7. KARTHIK, S/O.JEEJADEVI, DO.DO. 8. DEVADATHA SREEDHARAN, DEVADATHA BHAVAN, VADAYATTU KOTTA, KOLLAM. 9. SARASAMMA, MULLASSERY VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERRY, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ W.P(c) No. 32448 of 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by the order for delivery in E.P No. 22 of 2008 in O.S. No.182 of 1983 of Sub Court, Kollam. His contention is that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of E schedule property therein from 1963 onwards having obtained lease of the said property from the 9th defendant. In O.S. No.182 of 1983, final decree was passed and that decree is sought to be executed in E.P No.22 of 2008. In the meantime, petitioner filed O.S. No.395 of 2003 to set aside the preliminary decree, for prohibitory injunction and other reliefs. According to the learned counsel, it is while that suit was pending that final decree was passed in O.S. No.182 of 1983. Learned counsel contends that SM proceedings is pending in the land tribunal as SMP No.36 of 2007 concerning the tenancy claimed by him. 2. I have gone though the copy of the plaint in O.S. No.395 of 2003 produced by the petitioner and find that the only documents produced by the petitioner in that suit to prove alleged tenancy are two receipts dated 24/10/2000 and 17/03/2003 for payment of land revenue. W.P(c) No. 32448/ 2008 2 Though petitioner claimed to be a cultivating tenant from 1963 onwards, he could not produce any receipt for payment of rent until at least the landlord's right allegedly vested in the government or even receipt for payment of land revenue till 2000. It is to be borne in mind that petitioner did not take any steps for purchase of the alleged landlord's right over the plaint E schedule property and even the S.M. Proceeding came only in the year 2007 while preliminary decree was passed on 19-11-2003 and final decree was passed on 2-08-2007. S.M. proceedings are initiated about four (4) years after the petitioner filed O.S. No.395 of 2003. I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order for delivery in E.P No.22 of 2008. If at all petitioner is aggrieved by the delivery of property, he can seek appropriate remedy in O.S. No.395 of 2003 filed by him if he is otherwise entitled to that course. This writ petition therefore, is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm