IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4974   OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C)No. 19115/2007)

Vasudev Shenoy ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Kshemavathy & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted. The appellant herein is the decree holder arising out of civil  

suit  No.  O.S.  83/1997.   Consequent  to the decree  19 cents,  of  land  

belonging to the respondents herein was purchased by the appellant  

in a Court auction on 4th April, 2000.  The possession of the property  

was  delivered  to  the  appellant  on  30th January,  2001  by the  Court  

officials  with  Police  help  as  the  respondents  had  obstructed  the

delivery.  The  respondents,  however,  on  the  very next  day i.e.  31st  

January, 2001 re-possessed themselves of the property  by breaking  

open  the locks.

The respondents thereafter filed  civil suit No.141/2001 in the  

Court of the Sub-Judge, Cochin and obtained a temporary injunction  

against the appellant  

-2-

who was now the owner of the property.  The suit was dismissed on

18th June,  2005  with  the  observation  that  the  plaintiff  (that  is  the  

respondent herein) had absolutely no right whatsoever to the property.  

It  has been contended by  the learned counsel  for the respondents  

today that an appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree  

dated 18th June,  2005.  The appellant  in  the meanwhile  took several  

steps  to  repossess  themselves  of  the  property  but  remained  

unsuccessful.  Ultimately, he filed writ  petition No. 15525/2006 in the  

High court seeking the relief of possessin.  This petition was disposed  

of  on  6th July,  2006  with  the  direction  that  the  appellant  should  

approach the civil court.  The appellant thereafter filed an application  

under Sec.151  of the C.P.C. in O.S.83/1997 in the Court of the Munsiff,  

Cochin for re-delivery of the property in question. This application was  

dismissed on 7th June, 2007 on the ground that such an application  

under the said provision did not lie. The appellant thereupon preferred  

writ  petition No. 23954/2007 against the order of the civil  Court and  

this  too  was  dismissed  on  7th August,  2007  with  the  following

observations:

-3-

“Inherent  power  of  the court  under  Section  151  

CPC  cannot  be  invoked  by  the  executing  Court  after  recording the delivery, to deliver the property once again  to the decree holder or auction purchaser.  Remedy to the  writ  petitioner  is  institute  a  suit  for  recovery  of  possession.”

It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.   

We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  gone  

through the record.  The facts as stated above, are not disputed.  In  

these facts we are of the opinion that the respondents herein have no

justification legal or in equity in holding on to the property and that  

they  were  guilty  of  taking  the  law  into  their  hands  when  they  

repossessed themselves on 31st January, 2001.  Even the civil suit filed  

by them seeking a temporary injunction has been dismissed and the  

only argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that an  

appeal is pending before the High Court.  Be that as it may, the facts  

clearly  show  that  the  conduct  of  the  respondents  is  completely  

unacceptable  and we  are indeed surprised that  High Court  has not  

moulded the relief to  the appellant.

The  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  has,  however,  

argued  that  the  appellant  had   several  

-4-

applications  for  the  execution  of  the  decree  and  filed  repeated  

applications under 151 of the C.P.C. as well and as such the present  

proceedings  were  not  maintainable  and  the  remedy  before  the  

appellant was to file another civil suit as observed by the High Court.  

We need not go into this suspicion. We are of the opinion that  the  

Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Art.142 of the Constitution  

in the facts of the case.  We, thus, direct that the  appellant  should be  

put back in possession of the property within four weeks from today  

positively and that all help, including police help, that is required shall  

be  provided.   The  appellant  will  also  have  his  costs   which  are  

determined as Rs.50,000/-.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

                   ................  .J.                (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

                  . ..................J.

                                  (J.M. PANCHAL) New Delhi, July 31, 2009.