VASUMATHY Vs. THANKAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is preferred against the order of the Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha in E.A.200/05 in E.P.94/97 in O.S.59/91. It was an application filed by the judgment debtor for redelivery of the property and the Court by the order directed redelivery in favour of the judgment debtor. It is challenging that decision the decree holder has come up in appeal.

(2.) IT is statedthat a confusion is prevalent on all points in this case. The trial court granted a decreein favour of the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the property. The appellate court confirmed it and the High Court did not entertain a second appeal. Thereafter on the strength of the decree the plaintiff had taken delivery of the property. IT is challenging the same the other proceedings are pending.

(3.) SO the crux of the direction contained in the CRP is to find out whether the decree schedule property is the property covered by Ext.A1 or whether it is covered under Ext.B4. In order to enable the plaintiff to get delivery of the property one has to satisfy that it is the part and parcel of Ext.A1 property. Now the Commissioner has inspected the property and he had prepared a sketch and submitted a report. The Commissioner in his report at page 4 would submit that as per the directions of the High Court the position ofthe decree schedule appears to be Ext.B4.