Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 3077
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J.
Palakkad Municipality Represented By Its Secretary, Municipal Office, Palakkad - Appellant
Vs.
Krishnanunni S/o. Lakshmikutty Amma - Respondent
EX.SA NO. 16 OF 2020
Decided On : 03-12-2025
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Land Acquisition
Act Referred
KERALA MUNICIPALITY ACT : S.207
Headnote
(B) Execution of Decree - A decree must be executed in a manner that ensures justice, ensuring the decree holder receives property acquired without compensation. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The Palakkad Municipality challenged the execution of a decree directing them to transfer land to the decree holder following the acquisition of his land for a public purpose without proper compensation.
Findings of Court:
The Municipality's title to the property was not proven by the presented revenue documents, and the decree holder was entitled to the property as per the final decree.
Issues: 1. Establishment of the Municipality's title over the property. 2. Entitlement of the decree holder to the property as per the judgment. 3. Interference with the Execution and Appellate Court's findings.
Ratio Decidendi: It is the duty of a litigant to prove absolute title in respect of immovable property. The decrees were upheld, confirming the decree holder's entitlement to the property.
Result: Execution Second Appeal dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri.Binoy Vasudevan Shri.P.B.Krishnan (SR.)
For the Respondent: Shri.Jacob Sebastian, Shri.Winston K.V, Smt.Anu Jacob, SPL GP K R Deepa LSGD.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and parties involved (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. property acquisition and subject matter of the suit (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. opposition from the 1st respondent and development of the case (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. clarification of authority and vesting under the karnataka municipality act (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. legal implications of title and vesting of property (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. justice and entitlement in property transfer (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. final orders and directions from the court (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
A. Badharudeen, J.
Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2025 Palakkad Municipality, who filed E.A.No.180/2018 in E.P.No.227/2015 in O.S.No.469/2001 on the files of the Principal Munsiff Court, Palakkad, aggrieved by the order in E.A.No.180/2018, dated 06.04.2019, and the appellate decree and judgment dated 19.08.2020 in A.S.No.118/2019 on the files of the District Court, Palakkad, arising out of the same, has filed this execution second appeal under Section 100 and Order XXI Rule 103 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , challenging the above verdicts.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. Also heard the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 2 to 5. Perused the verdicts under challenge.
3. The summary of the case is that the Palakkad Development Authority acquired land free of cost from the 1st respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit, i.e., the decree holder in the execution petition and the Authority agreed to substitute the acquired land by providing ten cents of Government property in Palakkad Municipality. In this case, earlier, the 1st respondent had filed another suit objecting acquisition of his land by the Palakkad Development Authority, and thereafter, the Palakkad Development Authority, represented by the State of Kerala, agreed to grant 10 cents of Government land to the 1st respondent in substitution of 13 cents of property belonged to the 1st respondent acquired for the purpose of formation of Kozhikode-Kalamandapam bye-pass road. Thereafter, the Government failed to substitute the land as offered and aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent as plaintiff was forced to file the present suit to get the property so agreed and accordingly, a decree was passed in his favour and the same has become final.
4. While executing the decree, the property vested in the Municipality was ordered to be handed over to the 1st respondent/decree holder in the suit on getting the same identified as Government puramboke land. At this juncture, the present application has been filed by the Municipality contending that the property, which is proposed to be transferred to the 1st respondent/plaintiff, is a property absolutely owned by the Municipality and the Municipality obtained the same from the District Collector, Palakkad. Therefore, the said property could not be given to the 1st respondent in execution of the decree.
5. The 1st respondent and other respondents opposed the contention before the Execution Court.
6. The learned Munsiff ventured the matter by adducing evidence.
7. In order to prove title over the property proposed to be transferred to the 1st respondent, Ext.A1 attested photocopy of town survey plan of Sy.No.3627 and Ext.A2 attested photocopy of BTR were produced by the Municipality to show absolute title of the Municipality over the property.
8. When the claim petition was considered by the learned Munsiff, a contention was raised by the 1st respondent that the 4th defendant in the suit was the Secretary for Local Self Government Department, Thiruvananthapuram and therefore, an independent challenge in the form of a claim petition, without challenging the decree and judgment, would not lie. Any how, the learned Munsiff dismissed the claim petition. On appeal before the District Court, the District Judge also concurred the finding of the learned Munsiff.
9. Having heard the appellant as well as the respondents, the points arise for consi
