NAZEERA BEEVI, D/O JAMEELA BEEVI Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears, one Gopinathan Nadar and the 2nd respondent, Retnakaran were having acquaintance. Retnakaran allegedly entered into an agreement with Gopinanathan Nadar for sale of 12 cents of his land out of 27 cents, which he had appurtenant to Survey No.61/3. This was some time in the year 1987. Retnakaran, not having honoured the promise, a suit was filed by Gopinathan Nadar being O.S. No. 204/1987, claiming specific performance. The suit was decreed ex parte and in execution thereof Gopinathan Nadar was granted possession through Court. It appears that, in between, there had been resurvey. This property is alleged to be falling under Re Survey No.186/24 of Kanjiramkulam Village.

(2.) Retnakaran claimed that the agreement, on the basis of which the Civil Court had passed the decree, was a fraudulent document. But, the fact remains that, the decree as passed by the Court in the year 1987 has remained unchallenged, even though Retnakaran was aware of it for over three decades. The decree has thus attained finality. The decree clearly evidences that out of 27 cents of land in one piece as held by Retnakaran, 12 cents have been decreed in favour of Gopinathan Nadar, thus leaving Retnakaran with only 15 cents. This has to be borne in mind. It appears that Retnakaran is unable to reconcile to this fact and since then there has been a tussle between the parties on one plea or the other, as to where is the decreed land notwithstanding that physical possession was given through court execution to Gopinathan Nadar.

(3.) The petitioner, Smt.Nazeera Beevi, is the purchaser of this 12 cents of land from Gopinathan Nadar. Hence, this dispute is carried over now between Retnakaran and Nazeera Beevi. What is being contested or contended by Retnakaran is that his 27 cents of land were all contained in Old Survey No.61/3 and he had no land in Old Survey Nos.61/1 and 61/2. In other words, he submits that he continues to be entitled to 27 cents of land as contained in the Old Survey No.61/3 and he cannot be disturbed of his possession thereof. We regret our inability to agree to this for the simple reason as noticed earlier that the decree which has attained finality for the last three decades clearly shows that out of 27 cents of land as possessed by Retnakaran, he would be deemed to have sold 12 cents to Gopinathan Nadar. Therefore, the claim of Retnakaran that he still is in possession of 27 cents of land is a far fetched, false and misconceived claim. In law he is entitled only 15 cents of land, whether it be on Old Survey No.61/3 or 61/1 & 61/2. These facts cannot be and are not in dispute. Learned counsel appearing for Retnakaran fairly concedes that the legal effect of the decree would be that he is to be left only with 15 cents of land. There is no gain in saying that the decree was passed on a fraudulent document or the decree was obtained fraudulently for in spite of knowledge of decree for over three decades, no steps to set aside the same have been taken.