K.T. SANKARAN, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by respondent No.2 in E.P.No.149 of 2006 in O.S.No.496 of 2005 on the file of the court of the Additional Munsiff of Alappuzha. By the order impugned, the objections to the execution raised by the petitioner were rejected by the court below.

2. On 15.2.2005, an agreement for sale was executed between Prabhakaran (second respondent) and Vimala Sasidharan (first respondent). As per the terms of the agreement, Prabhakaran agreed to sell an item of property having an extent of 9 cents in favour of Vimala for a consideration of Rs.7 lakhs. An advance of Rs.4,50,000/-was paid to the seller. Under the agreement, the time for performance was agreed to be on or before 17.8.2005.

3. Even before the time stipulated for completing the transaction, Vimala filed O.S.No.496 of 2005 on the file of the court of the Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha against Prabhakaran for an injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the plaint schedule property to strangers, contrary to the terms of the agreement for sale. The suit was filed on 27.7.2005. On 27.8.2005, the parties to the suit entered into a compromise. A compromise decree was passed in terms of the compromise. As per the compromise, a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- was paid back by the vendor to the vendee. It was agreed that the vendor need not execute the assignment deed in favour of the vendee (Vimala). The vendor agreed to return the balance amount of Rs.2,70,000/-to Vimala within a period of six months. It was also agreed that on failure to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,70,000/-, the vendor has to pay interest at 12% per annum on that amount and that the property in question would be a charge for such amount.

4. Since the vendor did not repay Rs.2,70,000/-as per the terms of the compromise, the vendee (Vimala) filed E.P.No.149 of 2006 to execute the compromise decree and to realise the amount by sale of the property in question. In the Execution Petition, the petitioner in this revision (Molly Ajithkumar) was also made respondent No.2 on the ground that Prabhakaran assigned the property to the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is none other than the daughter of the vendor (Prabhakaran). On receipt of notice in the Execution Petition, Prabhakaran and the revision petitioner engaged the same lawyer and paid a sum of Rs.20,000/-to the decree holder. They also prayed for time to pay the balance amount. However, they did not pay the balance decree amount. The execution proceedings continued. The proceedings for sale of the property were taken by the decree holder. At that juncture, the revision petitioner engaged another counsel and filed objections in the Execution Petition. She contended that the Execution Petition is not maintainable and that the property could not be proceeded against for realisation of the decree amount. The vendor also filed an objection stating that the decree was obtained by fraud.

5. The executing court rejected the contentions raised by the revision petitioner as well as by her father, by a detailed order dated 1.1.2008, which is under challenge in this revision.

6. Sri.Anil K.Narendran, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the compromise decree is not binding on the revision petitioner as she was not a party to the compromise. A charge was created over the property by the terms of the compromise. The petitioner is not bound by such a charge. Even if there is a liability on the part of the judgment debtor to pay the amount to the buyer (Vimala), the property in question cannot be proceeded against for realisation of the amount. It is also contended that the statutory charge under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of property Act is not available in favour of the decree holder as it has lost its significance after the compromise. The learned counsel submitted that the suit was not for specific performance of the agreement for sale, but only for an injunction. No suit was fil