Saboora VS Omana

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

A. BADHARUDEEN
Saboora – Appellant
Versus
Omana – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Kala T. Gopi, Nishitha Balachandran, Sajeevan Kurukkuttiyullathil, Vishnu Prabhakar V.S. and Tharish Muhammed, Advoates

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is at the instance of the petitioner in E.A.No.2/2019 in E.P.No.256/2011 in O.S.No.965/2001 on the files of the Principal Munsiff, Alappuzha. The respondents are the decree holder as well as the judgment debtors.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on admission.

3. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as ‘claim petitioner’, ‘decree holder’ and ‘judgment debtor’ hereafter for easy reference.

4. Perused the verdicts under challenge and the documents placed by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner.

5. The claim petitioner, who is the appellant herein, filed petition under Order XXI Rule 97 r/w Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘C.P.C’ for short hereafter) contending that the decree holder did not have any right or authority over the plaint schedule building and therefore, the claim petitioner could not be evicted therefrom since she was a bona fide purchaser of 1.25 Ares of land comprised in old Survey No.556/13 of Alappuzha village as per sale deed No.4881/14 of Alappuzha, S.R.O, dated 30.12.2014. The case of the petitioner as dealt in paragraph 1 of the order in E.A.No.2/2019 dated 27.07.2021 is as under:—

“The petitioner i