IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1761 of 2003 ---------------------- ( EP. 644 /2001 IN LAR.56/1988 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR) REVN. PETITIONERS/DECREE HOLDERS/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NAGAYYA ALIAS AMMUKUTTY NANGIAR, POOKKATTIL HOUSE, MAMMIYOOR, GURUVAYUR. 2. RUGMINI NANGIAR, POOKKATTIL HOUSE, MAMMIYOOR, GURUVAYOOR. 3. SUBHADRA NANGIAR, D/O. POOKKATTIL NAGELI ALIAS KUNJUKUTTY NANGIAR, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 4. BALAMANI NANGIAR, D/O. POOKKATTIL NANGELI ALIAS - KUNJUKUTTY NANGIAR, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 5. RAMAN NAMBIAR, S/O. POOKKATTIL NANGELI ALIAS KUNJUKUTTY NANGIAR, GURUVAYUR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD. 6. SARADA NANGIAR, D/O. POOKKATTIL NANGELI ALIAS KUNJUKUTTY NANGIAR, GURUVAYUR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD. 7. KAMALAM NANGIAR, D/O.POOKKATTIL NANGELI ALIAS KUNJUKUTTY NANGIAR, GURUVAYUR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL RESPONDENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTOR /RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) GENERAL, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI S. DILEEP. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... C.R.P. No. 1761 OF 2003 ................................................................................... Dated this the 3rd January, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners herein filed E.P.No. 644 of 2001 in L.A.R.No. 56 of 1988 on the file of the II Addl. Sub Court, Thrissur. The executing court disposed of the Execution Petition by order dated 31st January, 2003. One of the disputes involved in the Execution Petition was whether the petitioners are entitled to get interest on solatium. The petitioners relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of India [ 2001 (3) KLT 489 (SC)] . The court below, by the order impugned, rejected the claim made by the petitioner for interest on solatium on the ground that the decree does not provide for interest on solatium and execution court cannot go behind the decree. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India [ (2006) 8 S.C.C. 457 ]. In paragraph 54 of the judgment , the Supreme Court held as follows: “One other question also was sought to be raised and answered by this Bench though not referred to it. Considering that the question arises in various cases pending in courts all over the country, we permitted the counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder, the awardee/decree- holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not specifically granted by the decree. It is well settled that an execution court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, the claim for interest on solatium had been made and the same has been negatived either expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment or decree of the Reference Court or of the appellate court, the execution court will have necessarily to reject the claim for interest on solatium based on Sunder on the ground that the execution court cannot go behind the decree. But if the award of the Reference Court C.R.P. No. 1761 OF 2003 2 or that of the appellate court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or in cases where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or the appellate court, and merely interest on compensation is awarded, then it would be open to the execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder and say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in such an event interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. We also clarify that such interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions and the execution court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the judgment in Sunder (19.09.2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree holder. This we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question.” 3. In the present case, the decree does not refer to the question of interest on solatium . Going by the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India [ (2006) 8 S.C.C. 457 ], in such circumstances, the petitioners would be entitled to claim interest on solatium. 4. The order passed by the executing court in so far as it relates to the claim for interest on solatium is set aside. The executing court is directed to proceed with the execution for realisation of the interest on solatium as well. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk