Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
B. V. NAGARATHNA, R. MAHADEVAN
L. K. Prabhu @ L. Krishna Prabhu (Died) Through Lrs – Appellant
Versus
K. T. Mathew @ Thampan Thomas – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. This Civil Appeal has been preferred against the final judgment and order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam [Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in RFA No. 347 of 2009, whereby the High Court disallowed the claim of title raised by the claimant / purchaser (original applicant – L.K. Prabhu @ L. Krishna Prabhu) and remanded the matter to the trial Court to determine the extent, if any, of the purchaser’s entitlement towards recovery from the debtor, including any part of genuine sale consideration, with a direction to dispose of the same, within two months from the date of appearance of the parties.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, L.K. Prabhu @ L. Krishna Prabhu (original applicant) entered into an agreement for sale on 10.05.2002 with Defendant No. 3, V. Ramananda Prabhu. The agreement proceeds to state that Defendant No. 3 acknowledged his liability of Rs. 17,25,000/- to the original applicant and undertoo
(1) Attachment before judgment cannot extend to properties which have already been alienated prior to institution of suit – Attachment before judgment cannot override a prior completed transfer.
(....
A transfer made with knowledge of an attachment before judgment can be contested as fraudulent under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC shall be adjudicated upon as if it is a regular suit, and any adjudication on the rights....
Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C., which is extracted as adjudication of claims to or objections to attachment of property.
Transfers made during an injunction are void; claimants must prove bona fides as transferees to assert rights over attached property.
Attachment must comply with jurisdictional rules; absence qualifies as an irregularity, not an automatic nullity unless substantial injury is proven.
Civil courts are enjoined to consider disputes between parties and when substantive rights are created and such rights are being flouted, it is for civil court to consider respective contentions and ....
The court established that non-compliance with procedural requirements for attachment before judgment renders the attachment ineffective, impacting the validity of subsequent sales, including court a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article