IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19266 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN EP 76/2008 IN OS.337/1989 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHAMI @ RAMACHANDRAN, 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHATHAN @ CHAMUNNI, RESIDING AT 6/425,THUPPLANKAD, KARINKARAPPULLI AMSOM,PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.V.VENUGOPAL, 52 YEARS, S/O.P.A.VENKITESWARA IYER, ASHIRVADH, 36/363,ST FRANCIS EXAVIER CHURCH ROAD, CHAKKAMADAM LANE KALOOR COCHIN. 2. P.V.KRISHNAMOORTHY, 48 YEARS, S/O. P.A. VENKITESWARA IYER, -DO- -DO- 3. P.V.RANGANAYAKI, 66 YEARS, W/O.N.DEVARAJAN,KAITHARATH MADAM, EDAYAZHAM, VANCHIYOOR, VAIKOM. 4. P.V.SEETHALAKSHMI, 58 YEARS, W/O. S.K. MANI, XX/11,VANDHANA, PULICHODE STOP, ALUVA. 5. VENKITASWARAN @ BALAJI, 25 YEARS, S/O.P.V.DAMODARASARMA, ASHIRVAD 36/363, ST.FRANCIS XAVIER CHURCH ROAD, CHAKKAMADAM LANE, KALOOR COCHIN. 6. P.V.RAMAKRISHHNAN,69 YEARS, S/O. P.V.VENKITARAMA IYER, 18/626,THALI ROAD,KOZHIKODE. 7. P.V.JAYARAMAN,58 YEARS, S/O.VENKITARAMA IYER, SREYAS RAJI, NO.18 FIRST FLOOR, 16TH CROSS ST BASANTH NAGAR, CHENNAI THAMILNADU STATE 8. P.V.RANKANAYAKI, 79 YEARS, W/O.LATE T.G.SAHASRANAMA IYER, THIRUNELLAYI VILLAGE, P.O., PALAKKAD - 20. 9. P.V.ANANTHALAKSHMI,76 YEARS, W/O.LATE .L.V.ANANTHANARAYANAN, SREENIKETHAN,1/570(1) CHATHAPURAM VILLAGE, PALAKKAD - 3. 10. P.V.RADHAMANI,64 YEARS, W/O. R.SHEMANI, 9/351, INDIRA NAGAR, THARAVATUPADI, PIRAYIRI, (P.O.)PALAKKAD -19. 11. C.R.JANAKI, 64 YEARS, W/O.LATE P.V.DAMODHARAN SARMA, YES.YES TEMPLE TOWERS, THIRUVENKITA NAGAR, AMPATHUR, THAMILNADU STATE. 12. V.D.PRAKASH, 48 YEARS,S/O.LATE P.A. VISWANATHAN, 27/33, MARUTHAM NAGAR, VATAVALLI, COIMBATORE -41 TAMIL NADU STATE. 13. V.RAMAKRISHNAN,45 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.A. VISWANATHAN - DO- -DO- 14. V.MEENAKSHI,72 YEARS, W/O. LATE P.A. VISWANAHAN -DO- -DO- 15. V. MEENAKSHIGRANTHI, 49 YEARS, D/O.LAGTE P.A. VISWANATHAN, NEW NO.16,FLAT NO.3,PAPANASAM SIVAM ROAD, SANTHOMI, CHENNAI - 4. 16. VIDYA,20 YEARS,D/O.R.SUKUMARAN, 3/4,4TH SECTOR, 13TH STREET, K.K.NAGAR, CHENNAI. 17. T.K.RATHNABABU,40 YEARS, S/O. KITTA @ KRISHNAN, THUPPLANKAD KALAM,KARINKARAPPULLI AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 18. T.K. MOHANBABU, 42 YEARS, S/O.KITTA @ KRISHNAN -DO- -DO- 19. T.K. PREMAKUMARI,52 YEARS, S/O.KITTA @ KRISHNAN - DO- -DO-. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.19266 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner has moved a claim petition when execution proceedings were initiated in respect of a decree passed in a suit for partition pending on the file of the Sub Court, Palakad. An application for appointment of a commission to identify the property claimed by the petitioner which, according to the case of the petitioner, formed part of the decree granted in the suit, was negatived by the learned Sub Judge. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.19266 OF 2009 2 2. In an application moved under Order 21 Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure, whether it is anterior or posterior to dispossession pursuant to the execution of a decree, all questions raised between parties including right, title and possession have to be considered, as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 101 of Code of Civil Procedure. Claimant has to establish his right, title and interest in the property covered by the decree, and it is not the identification of the property that is the material question arising for consideration. So much so I find the impugned order passed by the learned Sub Judge declining the request for appointment of a commission for identification of the property cannot be found fault with. An adjudication of the disputes as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be gone into to determine the merit of the claim, and, then, appropriate orders have to be passed. W.P.(C).No.19266 OF 2009 3 3. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv