Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH FRIDAY, THE29H DAYOF AUGUST20147TH BHADRA, 1936 OP(C).No. 1639 of 2014 (O) --------------------------- O.S.NO.1573/2014 OF III ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR .......... PETITIONER: -------------------------- DR.JIJO JAMES, S/O.JAMES CHEREATH, KANIYAMPAL DESOM, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANIPAYOOR, THALAPPILLYTALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------- 1. JOSEPH, S/O.JAMES CHEREATH, MARATHAKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 306.
2. LILLY, W/O.JAMES CHEREATH, MARATHAKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 306. R1 BY ADV.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) R2 BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2908-2014 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OP(C).No. 1639 of 2014 (O) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: --------------------------------------- EXT.P-1: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION DTD283.2014 WAS FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P-2: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE JUDGEMENT DTD283.2014 IN O.S. NO.1573/2014 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P-3: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE DECREE DTD283.2014 IN O.S.NO.1573/2014 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P-4: A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS40142014 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P-5: A TRUE COPY OF THE KARAR DATED119.2012 EXECUTED BY THE2D RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P-6: A TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER
DTD146.2014 IN O.S40142014 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P-7: A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD266.2014 IN I.A.NO.12527/2014 IN O.S40142014 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P-8: A TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DTD77.2014 IN O.S. 4014/2014 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P-9: A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DTD17.2014 IN O.S40142014 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------------- N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TOJUDGE Kss V.Chitambaresh, J.
==================================== O.P.(Civil)No.1639 of 2014 ==================================== Dated this the 29th day of August, 2014. JUDGMENT
1The petitioner is the younger son and the first respondent is the elder son of the second respondent mother. The second respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.1573 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Thrissur against the petitioner. The relief therein was to set aside the settlement deed (Document No.3655/12) executed by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner. A compromise was entered into between the parties and Clause 3 thereof is as follows: "%Hc^OIG_5 2 UY5{_W NxJ^Ax U_g\om XVfU HOV11258 W1024 &V &G^x" HOV365512 UXqaU_W .Dc5f_ H_VN^C dIUVJHBZ256.2014 Hm N^dDgN &x" L_Aa5OaUa.e?_ D`OnD_Am NaO^O O^fD^xa H_VN^C d IUVJHXB{a" ?_ UXqaU_W .Dc5f_ H?Ja KD\o.e%Hc^OA^x_Oaf? 'W^HaXxC" U^YHBZ I^VAm f:OnaKD_Hm 25.6.2014 Ufx O.P.(Civil)No.1639 of 2014 -:2:- %U5^VNaI^O_x_Aa KD^Cm.e?_ UXqa %Hc^OA^x_ )IgO^7_AaKD_fH D?O^gH^, D?T" XcWm?_A^gH^ 25.6.2014 Ufx .Dc5f_Am %U5^VN_f\oKa" XND_:n_x_AaKa." The suit was accordingly decreed on 28.3.2014 in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties. 2.The effect of the compromise is as follows: (i) The settlement deed (Document No.3655/12) executed in favour of the petitioner remains valid; (ii) The petitioner has no right to object to the second respondent using the property till 25.6.2014; (iii) The petitioner has, undoubtedly, right to use the premises settled from 26.6.2014. 3.The compromise decree was put into execution in E.P.No.1039/14 wherein the execution court directed delivery of the property in favour of the petitioner. It is at that point of time that the first respondent filed O.S.No.401/14 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Thrissur for injunctive reliefs. 4.The first respondent has evidently not succeeded in obtaining an O.P.(Civil)No.1639 of 2014 -:3:- order of injunction against eviction in I.A.No.12537/14 in O.S.No.4014/14. The interim order of injunction dated 24.6.2014 only prevents dispossession, except in accordance with law. The dispossession of the second respondent in execution of the compromise decree in O.S.No.1573/14 is an exercise in accordance with law. I clarify that the order of injunction in I.A.No.12537/14 in O.S.No.4014/14 does not impede the execution of the decree in O.S.No.1573/14. 5.The first respondent attempts to cling on to the property on the basis of a licence deed executed by the second respondent. The last of the licence deeds is dated 11.9.2012 and the period therein has also expired. The alleged endorsement of extension of the period of licence does not inspire confidence in me. The licence is at best a permissive occupation which should deemed to have come to an end from 26.6.2014. The licence deed produced O.P.(Civil)No.1639 of 2014 -:4:- shows that it is an open ground where lorries are permitted to be parked. None of the so-called licence deeds reflect a structure to claim the benefit of any lease. It will be inequitable to delay the execution of the decree in E.P.No.1039 of 2014 in O.S.No.1573 of 2014 on the basis of such a licence deed. 6.The first respondent has not secured in obtaining a blanket order of injunction in O.S.No.4014/14. There is, therefore, no equity in allowing him to cling on to the premises by virtue of an order of this Court. The first respondent can very well invoke Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure even after he is dispossessed. E.A.No.1344 of 2014 allegedly filed under Order 21 Rule 97 can as well be disposed of by applying Order 21 Rule 99 C.P.C. The execution of the compromise decree in O.S.No.1573 of 2014 cannot brook any further delay. 7.The Court of the Munsiff, Thrissur is directed to surge ahead O.P.(Civil)No.1639 of 2014 -:5:- with the proceedings in E.P.No.1036 of 2014 in O.S.No.1573 of 2014 expeditiously. Every endeavour shall be made to effect delivery and report the same before the court closes for Onam vacation. That will, of course, be without prejudice to the right of the first respondent to pursue his claim, if any, under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC. It will be open to the petitioner after obtaining delivery to grant permission to the first respondent, if he so desires. The original petition is disposed of as above. V.Chitambaresh, Judge. sl.