Jose Antony vs Union Bank of India and Others

K.P. Balachandran, J.—The appellant is the petitioner in E.A. 362/82 filed by him under Order XXI Rule 99 C.P.C for redelivery of the scheduled property delivered over to the first respondent/bank in execution of the decree in O.S. 232/78 obtained by it against the second respondent Anthony/father of the petitioner. The second respondent died and his other legal representatives are impleaded as respondents 3 to 12 in E.A. 362/82.

The appellant/petitioner advanced claim to the property which was purchased by the decree holder/first respondent/bank in execution of the decree in O.S. 232/78, the decree being one charged on the scheduled property, the property having been equitably mortgaged by the second respondent in favour of the first respondent and brought to sale in execution of the money decree against the second respondent. According to the appellant, it is property obtained by him under Ext.A3 assignment in his favour dt.15/07/1977 from his paternal grandfather/Thomas who was holding leasehold right over the property; that himself and his father/the second respondent were not on good terms; that there were litigations also between them; that O.S. 704/78 of the Munsiff''s Court, Irinjalakkuda is suit filed by him against his father for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and that was decreed vide Ext.A6 decree and that therefore, dispossession effected in execution of the decree in O.S. 232/78 was illegal and wrongful and that the property has to be delivered over back to his possession.

The execution court which considered the petition filed by the appellant dismissed the petition by a considered order considering the evidence adduced at trial which consisted of only documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A7 and Ext.B1. The dismissal of E.A. 362/82 was assailed before the first appellate court in A.S.48/02. From the first appellate court a commission was issued to inspect the property and to submit a report and plan thereof. Exts.C1 and C2 are the reports submitted by the Commissioner and Ext.C3 is the plan got prepared from the Village Officer, Alathur. After hearing both sides, the said appeal was dismissed by the first appellate court confirming the order of the execution court and hence, this R.S.A by the petitioner in E.A. 362/82 in O.S. 232/78.

It is vehemently contended before me by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant obtained the property under Ext.A3 assignment deed from his paternal grandfather; that there is difference in boundary described in Ext.A3 and in Ext.B1; that the properties are different and that the property in his possession should not have been delivered over to the first respondent as if it is property covered by Ext.B1 purchase certificate.

The scheduled property in relation to which Ext.B1 purchase certificate was issued is 69 cents comprised in Sy. No. 1411/2 of Alathur village in Mukundapuram Thaluk in Thrissur district. According to the appellant, that property is not the property covered by Ext.A3 going by the description of the boundaries. The property over which claim is advanced on the basis of Ext.A3 is also 69 cents comprised in Sy. No. 1411/2 of Alathur village in Mukundapuram Thaluk in Thrissur district. The counsel for the appellant has placed before me for perusal survey plan of property comprised in Sy.1411/1 1411/2 and 1412/1 as also Sy. No. 1409/2 of Alathur village which is photostat copy of Survey plan prepared by Village Officer, Alathur marked as Ext.A3 before the first appellate court. It shows that the total extent of property comprised in Sy. No. 1411/2 of Alathur village is only 69 cents. The appellant has no case that the property delivered over to the first respondent is not property comprised in Sy. No. 1411/2. He has not adduced any evidence to establish that Ext.B1 purchase certificate is not in relation to the property comprised in Sy. No. 1411/2. Apart from the documentary evidence, no other evidence was adduced before the execution court to substantiate the contentions so advanced. It is also worthy to note that Ext.A3 assignment deed is executed in favour of the appellant by his paternal grandfather and that was on 15/07/1977. For more than seven years after the amendment of Land Reforms Act, the executant under Ext.A3 had not applied for purchase of jenm right over the property covered by Ext.A3. Further Ext.A3 is executed almost after two years of the father of the appellant namely the second respondent effecting purchase under Ext.B1 purchase certificate. The purchase certificate issued in favour of the second respondent is not assailed either by the appellant who obtains Ext.A3 after two years of Ext.B1 or by the executant of Ext.A3 who is the father of the second respondent. In the circumstances, it can only be considered that after the second respondent obtaining Ext.B1 certificate of purchase, Ext.A3 assignment was being obtained by the appellant from his paternal grandfather so as to advance rival claim against his own father who has obtained Ext.B1 purchase certificate and that is what is evidenced by production of Exts.A1, A4, A5 and A6 if at all those records in O.S. 704/78 does not evidence a collusive suit and a shadow fight between the appellant and his father/the second respondent. What has been delivered over to the first respondent/decree holder is only the property of 69 cents comprised in Sy. No. 1411/2 covered by Ext.B1 purchase certificate dt.25/08/1975 which property was equitably mortgaged to the first respondent/ bank and purchased by them finally in court sale in execution of the decree in O.S. 232/78.

In the circumstances, there is absolutely no merit in this Execution Second Appeal and there is no question of law and much less any substantial question of law arising for consideration by this Court in this Execution Second Appeal. This Execution Second Appeal is hence, dismissed in limine refusing admission.