ARAVINDAKSHAN Vs. SAROJINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Sub Court, Palakkad in EP No. 119 of 2006 in OS No. 182 of 1986. The execution petition is filled by the petitioners for getting delivery of the property as per the terms of the final decree on deposit of Rs.14 lakhs. The Court below considered the objections raised by the respondents and granted an order directing the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 to deposit Rs.14 lakhs with a further direction to receive that demand draft and hand over the key of the building before the Court on 20/11/2007.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are stated as follows: The suit is one for partition with respect to one out of 8 shares in the property which was so declared by a preliminary decree and during the pendency of the final decree respondents 7 to 9 died in a road accident, whose rights devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 and therefore by virtue of the operation of the death of defendants 7 to 9, the plaintiff is entitled to one out of 7 shares and defendants 1 to 6 one out of 7 shares each. During the pendency of the final decree proceedings a compromise was entered into between the parties and it was filed before the Court. A perusal of the compromise petition would reveal that the 2nd respondent, viz., the revision petitioner herein has agreed to surrender all his right, title and interest in the property for a sum of Rs.14 lakhs and it further stipulates that the petitioners will pay the amount to the 2nd respondent, viz., the revision petitioner herein by demand draft within six months. It was also agreed that the 2nd respondent will hand over the key of the building to the first petitioner or her Advocate and receive the demand draft. This compromise was filed on 08/06/2003. In pursuance of the compromise the Court passed a final judgment on 15/06/2005. The Court recorded the compromise and passed a final decree in terms of the compromise petition, i.e. (1) allotting the decree schedule property in full to the share of defendants 2 to 6 and plaintiff jointly, (2) directing defendants 2 to 6 to pay the 1st defendant a sum of Rs.14 lakhs by demand draft within six months when he will hand over the key of the building to the 2nd defendant or her Advocate and receive the demand draft.

(3.) Now the contention raised by the petitioner is to the effect that there is no executable decree as such in the light of the factum of the non fulfillment of the terms of the compromise and secondly the executing Court has no power to extend the period stipulated in the decree for deposit of the amount. So far as the first point is concerned let me consider which is the relevant date to be taken into consideration. It is true that the compromise petition is filed as early as on 08/06/2003. The compromise petition gets the approval of the Court only by virtue of passing an order on the basis of that compromise petition. When it is so, the real date that has to be reckoned can be only from the date when an order is passed on the basis of the compromise. I do not know the reason why such a long time was taken by the parties or the Court to get an order in a final decree petition when a compromise petition had been filed. When a final decree is passed it becomes an executable decree. It is true that conditions are attached in that final decree order. By passing the final decree, the Court on the original side puts an end to the suit. There is no dispute between the parties with respect to the factum that no appeal is preferred against the final decree passed in the case. So there is a valid conclusive final decree as far as the parties are concerned. Thereafter, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 through their Advocate on 21/09/2005 issued a notice to the revision petitioner intimating that they are ready with the amount of Rs.14 lakhs and they had requested the revision petitioner to come and collect the amount and hand over the key in terms of the final decree. To this, the revision petitioner sent a reply notice on 13/10/2005. This reply notice is very vague. It only states that there is no compromise petition filed with the junction of all the parties and no decree has been passed. So it is submitted that no cause of action or there is no right for the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 to have sent such a notice. So, at least immediately after the passing of the final decree, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 have moved in the right direction to get the property on tendering the amount. But to their dismay the first defendant totally denies everything and ultimately that has resulted in the filing of the execution petition. It is true that the final decree is passed with a condition to deposit the amount. Only on deposit of amount it confers a right on the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 to have the property delivered in their favour. Now the crucial question to be decided is whether the executing Court can extend time for deposit of the amount.