ESTHER Vs. DANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the plaintiff - decree holder is against the order of the execution court dismissing his petition for delivery of possession of the decree schedule properties.

(2.) The suit was instituted as early as in 1967 for a decree directing the defendants to convey the suit properties to the plaintiff. The relief claimed in the suit was , based on a right of pre emption that the plaintiff had as per a settlement deed to which the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are parties. The third defendant was impleaded as the assignee of these items from defendants 1 and 2 in derogation of the plaintiff's right of pre emption. The properties involved in the suit are a house and its compound described in schedules A and B in the plaint.

(3.) The Trial Court on 4-3-1971 dismissed the suit finding against the plaintiff's right of pre emption. In appeal A.S.102/1971, the Sub Court, Trivandrum decreed the suit declaring the assignment in favour of the third defendant as invalid and directing the defendants to convey the suit properties to the plaintiff on deposit of the consideration specified in the decree. The decree further provided that on failure of the defendants to execute the sale deed within the time fixed therein, it is open to the plaintiff - decree holder to get the sale deed executed through court. Second Appeal 88 of 1975 by the third defendant was dismissed by this court confirming the, decree of the Sub Court in AS.No.102 of 1971. The decree - holder thereafter filed E.P. 39 of 1979 for execution of the decree and a sale deed dated 14-1-1980 was executed by the court conveying the suit properties to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought further execution of the decree by way of delivery of the properties to him. The execution court rejected the prayer for delivery on the ground that the decree does not specifically provide for any such relief.