SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 9538

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
SALEENA.M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/8471/2018



Advocates:
SRI.LAVARAJ M.G

A party's property share cannot be executed for an award they are not party to, safeguarding ownership rights in execution proceedings.

Headnote:

Property - Undivided Share - Execution Proceedings - Provisions of Sale Deed and Award

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner seeks to prevent the attachment of her undivided property share, indicating that revenue recovery proceedings against her joint property are based on an award she is not party to.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's share in the property cannot be executed under the award since she is not a party to it, and the property was acquired after the award.

Issues: Whether the undivided share of the petitioner in the property can be attached based on an award to which she was not a party.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a party's property cannot be executed for an award without their involvement, emphasizing the rights conferred by the sale deed.

Final Decision: The petition is granted, preventing execution against the petitioner's property share.

J U D G M E N T

-------------------

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to the respondents not to attach the undivided share of the petitioner in the property covered by Ext.P4 in execution of Ext.P1 award. It is stated that in execution of the Ext.P1 award, revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated and the property jointly owned by the petitioner and her husband is being proceeded against. The petitioner has produced Ext.P4 sale deed dated 2.7.2015 and contends that the petitioner is a joint owner of the property and her share in the property cannot be proceeded against in execution of Ext.P1 award since the award is subsequent and the petitioner is not a party to the said award.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that in the light of the documents produced, the petitioner's share in the property which is conveyed by Ext.P4 sale deed cannot be proceeded against in execution of Ext.P1 order. It is seen that the sale deed, by which the property was acquired is executed on 2.7.2015 and the award is dated 29.7.2017. The petitioner is not a party to Ext.P1 award. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the respondents not to proceed against the undivided share of the petitioner in the property covered by Ext.P4 in execution of Ext.P1 order. It is made clear that the execution with regard to the petitioner's husband can be continued, in accordance with law.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top