IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15418 of 2010(R)
1. SURENDRAN C.K, AGED 42 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BINDU K.P, AGED 35 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :20/05/2010
O R D E R
R. BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.15418 of 2010
---------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basant, J.
The petitioner is the judgment debtor. His wife, the
respondent herein, is the decree holder. The decree has,
admittedly, become final. Payment has not been made in full. It is
submitted that part payment has already made. The property is
under attachment. The court is proceeding to recover the amount
by sale of that property. At this juncture, the petitioner has rushed
to this Court.
2.What is his grievance? According to the petitioner, the propriety
sought to be proceeded against does not belong to him exclusively.
Did he raise that plea before the court below? Did he substantiate
that plea? Did he inform the court that he has only fractional rights
and only the said fractional rights can be proceeded against? Did
any one of the other co-owners raise any objections against the
proposed sale? Satisfactory answers are not forthcoming for these
queries. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that he had raised a plea before the court
W.P.(C)No.15418/10 -2-
below that he is not the absolute owner of the property. He may
raise that plea and substantiate the same and inform the court below
of what right he has over the property. The attempt obviously, is to
secure an interim order and delay the proceedings in execution. We
have no reason to assume that the court below will proceed to sell
the entire property, if the petitioner actually has only a fractional
interest. Those contentions can be raised and substantiated before
the court below. We find absolutely no justification to invoke our
extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 at this
juncture.
3. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances,
dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this Writ Petition
will not fetter the right of the petitioner or the other co-owners,
if any, to raise appropriate contentions before the Family Court
in execution.
R. BASANT, JUDGE.
M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn