Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1032
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MARY JOSEPH, J
K.S.RAJAGOPAL – Appellant
Versus
P.G.PRASANTH – Respondent
OP(C) 257/2013
SRI.G.P.SHINOD, SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN, SRI.MANU, SRI.RAM MOHAN.G., SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR
An executing court must enforce a decree as it stands without considering subsequent events unless the decree is specifically set aside.
Headnote:
Supervisory - Execution of Decrees - Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 6 - The court held that the executing court must enforce a decree as it stands and cannot consider subsequent events that alter ownership status or possession unless the decree itself is set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a decree holder, filed an execution petition for a decree of possession issued after he was forcibly dispossessed. The respondents contended that the decree was inexecutable due to subsequent eviction and claims of ownership by third parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the executing court improperly considered subsequent events that affected ownership and concluded that the decree holder had no right to execute the decree following the forcible eviction.
Issues: Whether the decree for possession remains executable given the subsequent eviction of the petitioner and change in ownership of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The executing court is bound to execute decrees as they are unless legally set aside and cannot address complaints relating to subsequent changes in possession or ownership.
Final Decision: The Original Petition is allowed, and the order dismissing the execution petition is set aside.
JUDGMENT
This Original Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is none other than the decree holder and respondents are the judgment debtors in E.P.No.88/2011 in O.S.No.530/2004 on the files of the I Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram (for short ‘the court below’).
2. O.S.No.530/2004 was filed by the respondents for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner (defendant in the suit) from dispossessing the respondents from the plaint schedule shop room. A counter claim was filed by the petitioner seeking recovery of possession of the plaint schedule shop room contending interalia that the petitioner was forcibly dispossessed from the plaint schedule shop room on 25.03.2004.
3. The court below dismissed the Original Suit and decreed the counter claim finding that the petitioner was forcibly dispossessed from the shop room on 25.03.2004. True copy of the judgment dated 14.10.2005 in O.S.No.530/2004 of I Additional Musiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram is Ext.P1.
4. To execute the decree, E.P.No.88/2011 was filed in the Original Suit, true copy of which is Ext.P2. Objection was filed by respondents in Ext.P2 contending interalia that the decree is inexecutable since pending the suit, a Rent Control Petition was filed as R.C.P.No.59/2004 by one Nagammal, the landlord of the plaint schedule shop room against the petitioner and his brother and an order of eviction was passed in the suit on 06.12.2006 in favour of the landlord, that thereupon the landlord filed Execution Petition as E.P.No.328/2007 seeking execution of the order and obtained vacant possession from the petitioner on 03.06.2010, that in view of that, Ext.P1 judgment has become infructuous, that subsequently the 2nd respondent has purchased the plaint schedule shop room as per sale deed No.1834/2010 from the original landlord and that since then the 2nd respondent has become the absolute owner of the plaint schedule shop room. Therefore, it was contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the Execution Petition. True copy of the objection filed by the respondents in E.P.No.88/2011 in O.S.No.530/2004 on the files of 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram is produced alongwith as Ext.P3.
5. The decree sought to be executed is one passed in terms of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reckoning only the prior possession of the plaint schedule shop room. The title of the property is immaterial while executing Ext.P1 judgment. Since the petitioner was forcibly dispossessed from the plaint schedule shop room on 03.06.2010, the delivery of property sought from him in E.P.No.328/2007 in RCP No.59/2004 is only a paper delivery. The entire proceedings in RCP No.59/2004 was contended as malafide and orders there, were alleged as obtained by practising fraud and collusion.
6. The subsequent events occurred in respect of the plaint schedule property cannot be gone into by the executing court. The alleged subsequent event, it was contended, will not in any manner render Ext.P1 infructuous and inexecutable. According to the learned counsel, without adverting to those aspects, appreciating the evidence and understanding the nature of Ext.P1 decree, Ext.P3 was dismissed by the executing court on 26.07.2012, true copy of which order is produced alongwith and marked as Ext.P4.
7. It was contended by Sri.Shinod G.P, the learned counsel that Ext.P4 order is manifestly erroneous since it totally restrains the petitioner from realising the fruits of the decree. According to him, the order has resulted in miscarriage of justice and prejudice to the petitioner. According to him, seeking interference and reversal of Ext.P4 that the Original Petition was filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. On a perusal of Ext.P1 it is convinced that the petitioner was allowed to recover possession of the property scheduled in the counter claim
