KALYANI AMMA Vs. VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment debtor in O.S.No.338/78 challenges an order in execution whereby the execution court refused to appoint a commission to assess the value of improvements to be paid to the judgment debtor.

(2.) The suit O.S.No.338/78 was one for redemption. A decree was passed allowing redemption on 28-3-1981. By the decree, the plaintiff-decree holder was allowed to obtain possession of the property on deposit of the mortgage money and the value of improvements determined by the court. Counsel for the decree holder submits that the mortgage money was deposited on 28-3-1981 and the compensation for value of improvements was deposited in court on 13-4-1981. After obtaining the decree, the decree holder wanted delivery of the property through court. Judgment debtor was adopting various methods to protract the matter and she was successful to protract the execution till this date. The execution court finally passed an order of delivery. But that order of delivery was stayed by this court in this C.R.P. The order of delivery is dated 19-1-1989 and the court directed to effect delivery of the property on 2-3-1989 and to report the proceedings of the delivery on 3-3-1989. But it has to be noted that on 28-2-1989 itself, the judgment debtor obtained an order of stay of delivery from this Court in this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) The revision petitioner judgment debtor submits that even though there was a determination of the value of improvements in 1979, several years had gone by and during this time, the judgment debtor has made valuable improvements. Further he submits that the improvements found in the property in 1979 have grown by this time and he is entitled to a re-valuation of those improvements also.