KAMALAMMA Vs. MADHAVAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant is the appellant. The appeal arises from an order in execution. The suit was filed for redemption. A commissioner deputed by the Trial Court assessed the value of the building at Rs. 4,005, 64 nP. But, the Trial Court allowed only Rs. 1,900/-on the ground that a large portion of the building was constructed after the suit and after receipt of the order of injunction. When the decree holder applied for execution of the decree, the first defendant filed his objections stating that further improvements effected by him after 1121 ought to be assessed as per the provisions of Act, X of 1956. He also contended that he was entitled to get the entire value of the building as found by the Commissioner, viz, Rs. 4,005. 64 np. The court directed the Commissioner to value the improvements effected after the decree, and they were valued by the Commissioner at Rs. 82. 87 nP. Out of that amount the Munsiff found that the defendant is entitled to only Rs. 36/- and directed the defendant to remove the tapioca which was also valued by the Commissioner. That part of the order is not questioned in appeal. The prayer for reopening the decree and awarding the entire value of the building was disallowed by the Munsiff and that order was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge. The only point urged in this appeal is that in view of the decision reported in 1957 KLT 1274 (Raman Gangadharan v. Kochukunju Lekshmanan), it is open to the execution court to award the entire value of the building, and that should have been done in view of Clause.3 of S.5 of Act X of 1956.

(2.) There is no force in this contention. Clause.3 of S.5 only empowers the court executing the decree to assess the amount of compensation for improvements made subsequent to the date up to which compensation for improvements has been adjudged in the decree, and the revaluation of improvements for which compensation has been so adjudged when and in so far as such revaluation may be necessary with reference to the conditions of such improvements at the time of eviction. In this case the construction of the building was completed and its value was assessed at the trial stage, and the Trial Court after considering all the aspects adjudicated on the quantum of the value of the building to which the defendant was entitled. S.5 Clause.3 does not enable the execution court to reopen such an adjudication made by the Trial Court. The case reported in 1957 KLT 1274 is also no authority for the position that the execution court is competent to do so.