Muhammad Askar vs Angadipuram Service Co Operative Bank

A. Badharudeen, J

Judgment debtor in E.P.No.67/2015 in ARC.No.1086/2013 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Perinthalmanna, is the petitioner herein and he impugns Ext.P3 order dated 05.08.2019 passed by the Munsiff in the above execution petition. The respondent herein is the decree holder.

Heard both sides in detail.

While assailing Ext.P3, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that a portion of the mortgaged property is sufficient to satisfy the decree. The court below also, after taking such a view, appointed a Commissioner to locate the property sufficient for realising the decree. As per Ext.P1 report, the Commissioner had given emphasis to a location sketch obtained from Village Officer, Kuruva dated 19.05.2011 and based on the sketch, the Commissioner divided the property as plot A, plot B and plot C. Out of which, plot A having an extent of 16 cent was ordered to be sold by the execution court after fixing its market value at Rs.25 lakh as reported by the Commissioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the report itself, the Commissioner stated that property to an extent of 7.85 cent and 21.5 cent are lying contiguously and the assistance of the Village Officer is necessary to locate its boundaries. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the court below ought to have appointed the Village Officer to assist the Commissioner to locate the lie of the property. He also submitted that on the middle of the entire extent of property, there exists a house and, therefore, it is necessary to find out a portion of the property sufficient to satisfy the decree excluding the house. In order to prove the existence of the house therein, Ext.P4, a plan without much details, prepared by a licenced surveyor at the instance of the petitioner, has been placed. In fact, the said plan was not filed before the execution court or the same is not sufficient to locate the property which is sufficient to satisfy the decree.

Whereas the learned counsel for the decree holder would submit that at the time when the mortgage was created, there was no house in the property and at present also there is no house as stated in Ext.P4. According to him, sale of plot A is sufficient to satisfy the decree and the intention of the judgment debtor is to drag the execution proceedings in a litigation, started in the year 2013. Therefore, he submitted that the Original Petition is liable to be dismissed.

Going by Ext.P4 relied on by the petitioner itself, it is clear that out of the total extent of property, 21.50 cent is the property covered by document No.2785/99. Commission located 16 cent of property out of this 21.50 cent covered by the said document and the said document is silent as regards to the existence of any building in the property. In Ext.P4 plan, 16 cent located by the Commissioner is not specifically shown to convince this Court that in plot A, a portion of the house is situated. It is interesting to note further that Ext.P2 is the copy of petition filed by the judgment debtor before the execution court. In the said petition, while seriously disputing the market value of the property fixed by the Commissioner, another contention seen raised in the petition that a portion of the house is overlapping to 16 cent of property located by the Commissioner as plot `A'.

On perusal of the commissioner report (Ext.P1), it is not stated therein that in plot A, any portion of the house is situated. Even though the Commissioner reported so in Ext.P1, the petitioner had not shown any interest to locate 16 cent inclusive of the portion of the house while preparing Ext.P4. Instead, 2 plots having an extent of 16 cent and 21.50 cent covered by 3 documents shown together after showing existence of the house. Ext.P4 does not suggest that plot A located by the Commissioner includes a portion of the house in any manner.

Though award was passed in the year 2013 and execution proceedings has been initiated in the year 2015, the judgment debtor not cared to pay any amount towards the decree debt and he had not made any attempt to give another feasible plan so as to sell the said portion which is sufficient to satisfy the decree. Therefore, it appears that the sale of plot A as reported by the Commissioner, having an extent of 16 cent is the only way out to realise the award amount.

As regards to the challenge against the market value of the property also, nothing substantiated by the petitioner, either before the trial court or before this Court to show that the value assessed by the Commissioner is on lower side. Thus it appears that Ext.P3 order under challenge does not suffer from any perversity, arbitrariness or illegality to set aside the same by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, this Original Petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.