A. R. LAKSHMANAN, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE above appela is directed against the final order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 27. 8. 2003 in CRP No. 1136/2003 allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent herein.

( 3 ) THE appellant and the respondent are brothers, respondent being the elder. They have another brother who is well employed in the United States. The three brothers partitioned the property left behind by their father by metes and bounds. The respondent was running a theatre. A part of theatre fell in the property alloted to the appellant. Since respondent did not vacate and give vacant possession to the appellent, he was constrained to file a suit for a mandatory injunction for removal of the building and so surrender vancant possession. The appellant also prayed for a decree for recovery of possession.

( 4 ) THE appellants suit was decreed as prayed for. When the matter was pending in appeal at the instance of the respondent in the District Court, the dispute was referred to the Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act for resolution of the dispute. The matter was settled in the Lok Adalat. The award of the lok Adalat dated 5. 10. 1999 provided for sale to the appellant or his nominee of the property scheduled to the award after a period of one year and within a period of two years on payment of a sum of Rs. 9. 5 lacs to the respondent and on default of the respondent to execute the document, the appellant could get it executed through court. On the other hand, in case of default on the part of the appellant, he had to give up his aforesaid right and instead be entitled to be paid to Rs. 3. 5 lacs by the respondent.

( 5 ) THE respondent did not execute the sale deed within the time fixed despite repeated requests by the appellant. The appellant, therefore, sent a lawyers notice on 3. 10. 2001 to the respondent calling upon him to execute the sale deed. Respndent did not receive the notice and the notice was returned unserved to the appellant. The appellant thereafter sent a telegram on 26. 10. 2001 requiring the respondent to execute the sale deed and also sent him a copy of his earlier notice dated 3. 10. 2001 by certificate of posting. There was no response from the respondent. The appellant was, therefore, constrained to move for execution of the award by filing petition in the trial court, which was opposed on various grounds. The subordinate Judge overruled all the objections and the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 9. 5 lacs within three days i. e. , on or before 8. 4. 2003. The appellant, however, deposited the amount one day earlier on 7. 4. 2003 the next working day. But, the High Court allowed the revision filed by the respondent and dismissed the execution petition on grounds, which accroding to the appellant, are irrelevant and incorrect. Hence, the appellant preferred the above special leave petition.

( 6 ) WE have heard Mr. T. L. V. lyer,learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. P. Vinod, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the pleadings, orders passed by the courts below and the annexures filed along with the appeal.

( 7 ) MR. T. L. V. lyer, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 115 C. P. C. in entering into the investigation of questions of fact and appraisal of evidence in setting aside the well considered order of the executing court. He further submitted that the High Court is in error in holding that the appellant did not have the funds with him to have the deed of sale executed in his favour and the reasoning and the premises on which such a conclusion is based are faulty and fallacious besides being beyond jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the respondent had not performed his obligations by evincing his willingness to execute the sale deed on receipt of the amount of Rs. 9. 5 lacs. Concluding his arguments, M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document