IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 24TH MAGHA, 1944 O.P. (FC) NO. 11 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2022 IN E.P.NO.65 OF 2016 IN O.P.NO.242 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA PETITIONER:

NISSAR AGED 56 YEARS, S/O ISMAIL RAWTHER, ALINTE THEKKETHIL, VETTIYAR MURI, VETTIYAR VILLAGE, MANGAMKUZHI P.O, MAVELIKARA TALUK,ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690558.

BY ADV K.K.SATHISH RESPONDENT:

SHEEJA AGED 40 YEARS D/O MUHAMMED ALI, (FROM PLAVILAYIL), RAMALLOOR COLONY, VETTIYAR MURI, VETTIYAR VILLAGE, MANGAMKUZHI P.O, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DT., PIN – 690558.

BY ADVS.

PADMAKUMAR R ARJUN S.KURUPP THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 02.02.2023, THE COURT ON 13.02.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

The respondent-judgment debtor in E.P.No.65 of 2016 in O.P.No.242 of 2015 before the Family Court, Mavelikkara has filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He seeks to set aside Ext.P12 order dated

22.11.2022 in the said Execution Petition.

2. On 12.01.2023, notice was directed to be served on the respondent and granted an interim order that confirmation of sale, if any, in E.P.No.65 of 2016 in O.P.No.242 of 2015, will be subject to the orders in this Original Petition.

3. The respondent entered appearance through her learned counsel. She has filed a counter affidavit and therewith produced Exts.R1(a) to R1(c).

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. Ext.P12 order dated 22.11.2022 reads,-

“Heard. The undivided interest of judgment debtor in the scheduled property is ordered to be sold in auction for realising the decree amount. So proclaim and sell the undivided interest of judgment debtor in the scheduled property by public auction at 2 p.m. on 12.01.2023.

Upset price is Rs.7,50,000/-. Call on 12.01.2023.”

6. The contention of the petitioner is that in terms of Ext.P2 compromise, which was matured into a decree, the right acquired by the respondent-decree holder is to sell her half share in the property; whereas the Family Court, Mavelikkara as per Ext.P12 ordered to sell the share of the petitioner in the property. Thus, the said order is not in terms of Ext.P3 decree and accordingly, the petitioner seeks to set it aside.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the said contention was raised by the petitioner before the Execution Court in E.A.No.119 of 2018 and this Court in O.P.(FC) No.358 of 2020. Both the courts rejected that contention. The learned counsel further would submit that E.A.No.156 of 2018 was filed in E.P.No.65 of 2016 by the mother and sisters of the petitioner claiming right in the property which comprised in Re-survey No.290/20 of Vettiyar Village in Mavelikkara Taluk, but that application was dismissed as per Ext.R1(c) order from which also it is evident that property of the petitioner is liable to be sold in execution of Ext.P3 decree. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondent justifies Ext.P12 order.

8. The terms of agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent in Ext.P2, based on which O.P.No.242 of 2015 was decreed, are the following:

“1 ഹർജ(cid:4)കക(cid:4)യ(cid:8)ട(cid:10) പ(cid:4)ത(cid:14)സ(cid:16)ത(cid:4)നത(cid:4)ൽ ലഭ(cid:4)ച സ(cid:16)ർണവ(cid:8)ti, പണവ(cid:8)ti, എത(cid:14)കക(cid:4)യ(cid:8)ട(cid:10) സഹഹ(cid:29)ദര(cid:4)യ(cid:8)ട(cid:10) ആവശ" ത(cid:4)ഹലക(cid:29)യ(cid:4) ച(cid:4)ലവ(cid:29)ക(cid:4)യത(cid:4)ന(cid:8) പകരമ(cid:29)യ(cid:4) എത(cid:14)കക(cid:4)യ(cid:8)ട(cid:10) മ(cid:29)ത(cid:29)പ(cid:4)ത(cid:29)കൾ ഹർജ(cid:4)കക(cid:4)യ(cid:8)ഹ(cid:10)യ(cid:8)ti, എത"കക(cid:4)യ(cid:8)ഹ(cid:10)യ(cid:8)ti ക’ട(cid:29)യ ഉ(cid:10)മസതയ(cid:4)ൽ നൽക(cid:4)യ(cid:4)ട(cid:8)ളത(cid:8)ti, ഇഹ-(cid:29)ൾ എത"കക(cid:4) ത(cid:29)മസ(cid:4)ച. വര(cid:8)നത(cid:8)മ(cid:29)യ വ0(cid:10)(cid:8)ti ആയത. ന(cid:4)ൽക(c