Determined that a party's apprehension of collusion in a compromise decree lacks merit when rights are unaffected.

JUDGMENT

The original petition has been filed seeking to set aside Ext.P5 decree based on a compromise arrived at between the respondents. There is also a prayer to direct the Sub Court, Kollam to restore O.S.No.2/2014 and decide the suit on merits based on Ext.P4 written statement. The petitioner is the wife of the 2^nd respondent judgment debtor. The 1^st respondent is the decree holder. The suit was filed by the 1^st respondent against the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent. The matter was referred for mediation. The suit was one for specific performance and as per the compromise, the decree holder agreed to settle the matter by receiving ₹11,50,000/- from the 2^nd respondent. The claim against the petitioner was given up by the decree holder as can be seen from Ext.P5. When the 2^nd respondent failed to comply with the decree, 1^st respondent filed execution petition. Ext.P6 is the copy of the execution petition without the schedule. The petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in good terms with the 2^nd respondent and had filed M.C.No.11/2025 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Kollam and Ext.P8 is an order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kollam under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'), wherein a restraint order has been passed against the 2^nd respondent from committing any domestic violence affecting the peaceful residence of the petitioner in Kadakampally Purayidam, Vadakkevila Village under Section 18 (g) of the Act. The original petition has been filed apprehending that the petitioner will be dispossessed from the residential house. It is contended that the respondents are collusively trying to evict the petitioner.

2. The 1^st respondent has filed a counter affidavit producing the documents relating to the suit. It is contended that the 1^st respondent has no intention of depriving any of the rights of the petitioner and the execution is only against the share of the 2^nd respondent in the property. Ext.R1(g) is the affidavit filed in the execution petition along with a schedule which clearly says that the property scheduled is only one-half right belonging to the 2^nd respondent. As such, there is no basis for the petitioner's apprehension.

3. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit. The apprehension expressed is repeated in the said reply affidavit also.

4. During the arguments, the counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted that portions of the properties have already been attached by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and it is only after leaving out the properties which have been attached, the 1^st respondent has claimed against one half right belonging to the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner cannot seek to set aside a decree which has been granted to the 1^st respondent against the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent has not challenged the decree. The allegation of collusion is also without any basis since the 1^st respondent has not raised claim against the petitioner. The law is well settled that even if an undivided share is sold in execution, the person who purchases the said undivided share can only claim partition against the other co-owners and hence the apprehension that the petitioner would be thrown out from the property is without any basis.

The original petition is disposed of with the above observations.

Sd/-