SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Ker) 404

V.CHITAMBARESH, K.HARILAL
K. K. Purushothaman – Appellant
Versus
Santhamma – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri. K.V. Sadananda Prabhu
For the Respondents: Sri. B. Premnath

JUDGMENT :

Chitambaresh, J.

Is there any bar for the Execution Court to treat an application filed to record resistance to the delivery of property as one for removal of obstruction under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ['the CPC' for short] ?

2. An extent of 4 cents of land in R.S. No. 175/13 of Karumadi Village in Ambalapuzha Taluk was attached before judgment in a suit filed by the first respondent against the second respondent. The suit in O.S. No. 186/2009 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Alappuzha was one for realisation of a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs. The suit was decreed ex-parte against the second respondent by judgment dated 6.11.2009 which has become final and the attachment of the property made absolute. The property attached was brought to sale in E.P. No. 165/2010 and the first respondent decree holder herself bid the property in auction held on 18.3.2014. The auction was confirmed for a sum of Rs. 5,01,000/- and a sale certificate issued to the first respondent enabling her to apply for delivery of the property. The first respondent filed E.A. No. 325/2014 for delivery whereupon the execution court ordered the property to be delivered




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top