KOCHUPAUL Vs. JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Original Petition(Civil) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek to call for the records leading to Ext.P7 order in E.P.No.1904/2009 in O.S.No.8/2000 on the file of Additional Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda dtd. 30/10/2021 and to set aside the same.

(2.) The specific contention raised by petitioners 1 and 2, who are judgment debtors 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 in the above case is that originally O.S.No.8/2000 was filed by one Jose, the 1st respondent, herein as plaintiff for fixing the northern boundary of plaint A schedule property and for recovery of C schedule property in the event of the same forming part of the plaint A schedule property. After trial, suit was decreed by the Munsiff and the plaintiff was allowed to recover possession of 1.88 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.184/1 as identified in Ext.C1(a) plan from the possession of the defendants. Challenging the said decree, A.S.No.173/2002 was filed by the defendants before Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda and the said appeal was dismissed confirming the decree. Against which, R.S.A.No.560/2007 was filed and this Court delivered judgment on 15/12/2014. As per judgment of this Court, the decrees and judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court were confirmed and thereafter the case was remitted back to the trial court for the limited purpose of deciding the quantum of compensation to be given to the plaintiff to retain possession of plaint B schedule property by the defendants ordered to be recovered and for this purpose, the trial court was directed to depute a commissioner to value the property.

(3.) It was thereafter as per Ext.P5 judgment dtd. 29/6/2015, the learned Munsiff ventured the limited question referred by way of remand and finally directed the defendants to pay Rs.9,40,000.00 as compensation to retain plaint B schedule property. Since the defendants did not obey Ext.P5 order, the decree holder put the decree in execution by filing E.P.1904/2009 which led to Ext.P7 order when the defendants raised the contention that the decree and judgment confirmed by this Court cannot be executed. As per Ext.P7 the execution court negatived the contention and found that the decree is executable for recovering possession of B schedule.