SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE decree-holder is the appellant. The respondent is the claimant under O. 21, R. 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) THE appellant-Bank had obtained a decree against Krishna Karkera and others in O. S. No. 121/82. The decree was not satisfied and in the process of executing the said decree the appellant attached the boat in question asserting that the boat belongs to Krishna Karkera.

( 3 ) THERE is no dispute that the boat in question originally belonged to Krishna Karkera. It was hypothecated in favour of appellant-Bank's Ashok Nagar Branch at Mangalore. In the year 1988, Krishna Karkera sold the boat to one Madhava Shriyan and in the year 1989 said Madhava Shriyan sold the boat to Devendra Karkera as per Ex. P. 1. The said sale transaction was completed by payment of balance in the year 1991 as per Ex. P. 3. After the purchase Devendra Karkera was administering the loan account of Krishna Karkera in the banks branch at Ashok Nagar and ultimately the said loan obtained from the said branch was cleared in January, 1992.

( 4 ) THE appellant-Bank contends that Krishna Karkera had obtained another loan from the same Bank from Mission Street Branch and in respect of this loan the suit in question was filed as per O. S. No. 121/1982 and decree was obtained. Since this decree was not satisfied the boat in possession of Devendra Karkera was attached.

( 5 ) DEVENDRA Karkera contends that he was not bound to clear the loan raised by Krishna Karkera from the Mission Street Branch and that the earlier hypothecation of the boat in favour of Ashok Nagar branch was the only liability which he was bound to satisfy. The claimant further contends that he was not aware of the loan obtained by Krishna Karkera from Mission Street Branch and that he is the bona fides purchaser for value of the boat in question and therefore the appellant cannot proceed to attach the boat belonging to the claimant, by assuming that the boat still belongs to Krishna Karkera or on the assumption that the sale in favour of the claimant and the earlier sale in favour of Madhava Shriyan were not bona fide transactions and were entered into by Krishna Karkera to defeat the claim of the appellant. Several documents were filed by the claimant in support of his claim that he is the bona fide purchaser of the boat without knowledge of Krishna Karkera's liability to the appellant-branch at Mission Street. Before proceeding it is also necessary to note that the boat in question was not hypothecated in favour of the Mission Street Branch. But Mr. B. R. Aswatharam, learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that the earlier hypothecation in favour of Ashok Nagar Branch itself created a lien in favour of the appellant-Bank regarding all the claims of the appellant-Bank against Krishna Karkera. This proposition is based on the further contention that the hypothecation agreement between the appellant-Bank at Ashok Nagar Branch and Krishna Karkera is in reality an agreement between the appellant-Bank and therefore the benefit of that hypothecation and the lien that would result from the said hypothecation would extend to all the claims of the Bank irrespective of the branch from which Krishna Karkera borrowed any loan.

( 6 ) THE first question for consideration is whether the claimant is a bona fide purchaser of the boat without knowledge of Krishna Karkera's liability to the Mission Street Branch of the appellant-Bank and whether the sale transactions in favour of Madhava Shriyan and the claimant were bona fide transactions.

( 7 ) THE trial Court has given a definite finding that the transactions were bona fide and there is nothing to indicate that Devendra Karkera was aware of Krishna Karkera's liability towards Mission Street Branch of the Bank. On an earlier occasion this matter had come up before this Court in R. F. A. No. 216/92. This Court had remanded the matter on 3-8-1992 giving an opportunity to the parties to lead further evid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document