JAYARAJAN Vs. GANGADHARA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are respondents 6, 12 and 13 before the Executing Court in E.P. No. 52/96. The only contention raised by the petitioners is that the decree is not executable since the High Court Which passed a decree has no jurisdiction. The executing court refused to accept the contention and ordered execution. The C.R.P. is against this judgment.

(2.) From the facts set out in the application it is seen that the petition schedule property is an extent of 68 1/2 cents in Calicut town in which a house and few trees stood belonged to the petitioners ia the O.P. The property was mortgaged under Ext. A1 dated 20.6.1945 to one Kalyanikutty, the predecessor - in - interest of respondents. The mortgagors filed an application under S.11 of the Kerala Agriculturist Debt Relief Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for redemption of the mortgage. The Trial Court dismissed the application for redemption by judgment dated 8.2.1966. The decree was confirmed in A.S.No.3. The mortgagors filed Second Appeal. S.A. No. 852/70. By judgment dated 14.11.1972 this Court allowed the second appeal and remanded the application for redemption to the Trial Court directing the court to consider the question whether the lessee was entitled to fixity of tenure. By judgment dated 5.9.1973 the Trial Court held that the lessee was entitled to fixity of tenure and dismissed the application for redemption. The judgment was confirmed in A.S.No. 254/73. The mortgagors filed Second Appeal, S.A. No. 4/78. This court by judgment dated 9.2.1983 set aside the decision of the courts below and remanded the application for fresh decision. There after by judgment dated 30.11.1983 the Trial Court held that the lessee was entitled to the benefit of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and decreed redemption of the mortgage subject to the right of the lessee, to continue to be in possession of the property. On appeal by the mortgagors in A.S. No. 55784 the Sub Court held that the lease in favour of the lessee is not one exempted under Sections of the KLR Act and that the mortgagor is not an agriculturist entitled to invoke S.11 of the Act and therefore, the appeal was dismissed on 10.2.1989. A Second Appeal, M.S.A. No. 7/89, filed before this Court was allowed. This Court passed the following decree dated 2.6.1995:

(3.) Thus, it could be seen that the High Court had allowed redemption mortgage by judgments in S.A.No.852/70 dated 14.11.1972, S.A.No.4/78 dated 9.2.1983 and on third round in M.S. A. No. 7/89 dated 2.6.95. On the third and last round, the High Court itself granted the decree and it has become final. This Court in M.S.A. No. 7/89 held as follows: