Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16244
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
NISSAR – Appellant
Versus
SHEEJA – Respondent
OP (FC) 11 2023
K.K.SATHISH, PADMAKUMAR R, ARJUN S.KURUPP
The execution of a decree must align with its explicit terms and not contravene the parties' agreed rights in a prior compromise.
Headnote:
Execution - Family Law - Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court set aside an execution order that allowed the sale of the petitioner's undivided property instead of the respondent's designated half share as per a prior decree.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside an execution order, claiming it contradicted a prior decree that allowed the respondent to sell her designated half-share in a property. The Family Court ordered the sale of the petitioner's interest instead.
Issues: Whether the execution order misapplied the terms of the earlier decree regarding the sale of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The execution court must adhere strictly to the decree's terms; it cannot deviate by altering the specified rights of the parties involved as laid out in the compromise agreement.
Final Decision: The execution order was set aside, ensuring that only the respondent's designated share of the property could be sold.
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)(cid:25), 2 ഹമൽ സ’ച(cid:4)-(cid:4)ച പപക(cid:29)ര(cid:25) വസ(cid:8)5 വ(cid:4)റ. ക(cid:4)ട(cid:8)ന ത(cid:8)കയ(cid:4)ൽ 6,00,000/- 3 (cid:10)(cid:4) വസ(cid:8)5 വ(cid:4)ൽക(cid:8)ഹ:(cid:29)ൾ ക(cid:4)ട(cid:8)ന ത(cid:8)കയ(cid:4)ൽ മ(cid:8)കള(cid:4)ൽ പ1ഞ(cid:4)ട(cid:8)ള 6 deposit ടചയ(cid:8)വ(cid:29)ൻ ഇര(cid:8) കക(cid:4)കള(cid:8)(cid:25) സമത(cid:4)ച(cid:4)ട(cid:8)ളത(cid:29)ണ..
4 (cid:10)(cid:4) വസ(cid:8)5 സ(cid:25)ബന(cid:4)ച. തഴകര സർവ0സ. സഹകരണ ബ(cid:29)ങ(cid:4)ല(cid:8)ള 5 മ(cid:8)കള(cid:4)ൽ 1 മ(cid:8)തൽ 4 വടര വ"വസകൾ പ(cid:29)ല(cid:4)ക(cid:8)നമ(cid:8)1യ.ക. 6 ഹർജ(cid:4)ക(cid:29)ര(cid:4)ടക(cid:29)-(cid:25), മകള(cid:8)(cid:25) എത(cid:4)ർകക(cid:4)ടക(cid:29)-(cid:25) മകന(cid:8)(cid:25) 7 ഹർജ(cid:4)ക(cid:29)ര(cid:4)ഹക(cid:29) മകൾഹക(cid:29) ഹമല(cid:4)ൽ എത(cid:4)ർകക(cid:4)യ(cid:4)ൽ ന(cid:4)ന(cid:8)(cid:25) 8. (cid:10)(cid:4) ഒന(cid:29)(cid:25) പ(cid:29)രപഗ(cid:29)ഫ(cid:4)ൽ പ1ഞ പപക(cid:29)ര(cid:25) വസ(cid:8)5 വ(cid:4)ന.ട1 പക(cid:8)ത(cid:4) ഭ(cid:29)ഗ(cid:25)
9 (cid:10)(cid:4) ത0യത(cid:4)കക(cid:25) എത(cid:4)ർകക(cid:4)ക. വസ(cid:8)5 വ(cid:4)റ(cid:8) മ(cid:8)കള(cid:4)ൽ പ1ഞ
10. ഈ വ"വസകൾ എത(cid:14)കക(cid:4) അ(cid:25)ഗ0കര(cid:4)ക(cid:29)ടത വന(cid:29)ൽ ക(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:25)ബ
9. Clause (1) in Ext.P2 says that the right created in favour of the respondent in the undivided half share in the property was in lieu of appropriation of her gold ornaments and money by the petitioner in order to meet the expe
