IN TH HIGH COURT OF TEE STA±E OP RAVANCO-CO CII A BAK7JAM. \ I 'i - Present:- -w.I1he Hon•ble Shri K.T. oshi, gief Justice and The Hon'ble Sh.ri P.D. Nandana Ivienon, Judge. ' ,A.S. No. 19 of 1954. o.s.no. 73 of 1118 on the .file of the Dist.rict Gou.rt, K0ttayam, pending execution in tlle Temp. Addl. District Court, Parur. • Appellant:- 8th de.f'endant. Pee:rubava Ibrahim of InchaJ:r,.lcattil, Udumbarmoor Kal'a, 1{8..rimannoo.r Pakuthy, Thod upuzha • Talul.:. By Advocate Sh.ri IT.D. Pa.rameswa.ran lJamboo1~ipad. Bes nondents :- Assignee Dec.rec-holde.r I O.riginal dec.ree-holde.r and defendants 1, 3 to 7, 9 and 1o. 1. Cha elm Joseph, Pa.rethazhathu, Pannoo.ru l!Ju.ri, Ka.rimam100.r Pauly, Thodupuzha aluk. • Reoved off fro the array. . .,,., 3. Avira Ouseh 'of LAoottoo.ru, Udumbannooru l(a.ra, iCa.rirnannoo.r Pakuy, Thodupazha Talul. (died). d. akaru Pariyath of Platchottathil, do. do. 5 • Avira Chacko of Mottoo.ru, do. do. 6. Ouseph Anna of do. do. 7. Ouse_ph- Agasthy Alias Kunjukutty of' do. 8. Ouseph Sosa .residintc in Sanlr.a.ramulr.athu, do. 9. Sankara Pillai irisina Pillai of Paclistva, Udunbannooru Muri,. Karimannoor Pal:uthy. 10. Ouseph Kariacko of Kottaepa.rambil, do. do. 3rd Respondent died Legal heirs:- ll. Ouseph raham of undooru Udapanoor Kara, Karuannoor Palrnthy. 12. ·ousepl:1 .Joseph of do. 13. Ouseph Jacob of' do. 14. Ouseph ate of do. 15. Ouseph Kurian of do. (Lfi.no.r).- lo. Ouseph Thomas of do. (LTino.r). Guardian of mino.r res;;ondents 15 and 16 is thei.r mothe.r, 6th respondent, Ouseph Amma - Ca use title ts amended as per o.rde.r on C.ii.P. 643/55 dated c-9-1955. By Advocate Shri i.. Varghese for Respondent l. This .i\ppeal Suit having been finally heard on l8-l0-l955, this cou.rt on the same day delivered the following:- / .. JUDGN.ENT. .\ Of the.two points raised in the appeal the complaint that the - sale prescribed by the decree will not be observed~ to proclaim items 4, 8 and 9, and that does not mean the o.rder fo.r ¢ 4 should be sold last has no substance. here is now only a d i.rection It • t R lower court's o.rde.r cont.ravens the prov-isions of the decree that item. « • amount is a sheer abuse of the process df the court. and the atte:·2pt of the assignee to execute. the decree for the whole t s for the discbarge of Rs. 700/.- as per B:x:t. II we a.re - afraid the lower court's 'vie that ts. C'and Cl stand in the • way of the question of adjustment bein.g .reagitated has to be upheld 1n spite of our p.r6nounced opinion that the ·assignment- of the decree The appeal is hence di~jHJissed, but without costs. ' ' ,,. Sd/- C;J·, Sd/- P.'D. Nandana ienon, a.j 13-10-1955.' ("rue Copy). , a= DY. H.egist.ra.r, r·or Regist.ra.r. AF/17-xi-55. . A.S. Ho. 19 of 1954. Copy of Judgment. J il i: