IMPORTANT POINT
Transfers made during an injunction are void; claimants must prove bona fides as transferees to assert rights over attached property.

JUDGMENT :

T.R.Ravi, J.

The claimant in E.A.No.753 of 1999, E.P.No.19 of 1999, and O.S.No.258 of 1996, on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad, has challenged the rejection of the claim in this appeal.

2. The respondents 1 to 3 filed O.S.No.258 of 1996 against the 4th respondent claiming maintenance. The 1st respondent is the wife of the 4th respondent and respondents 2 and 3 are the children of respondents 1 and 4. The suit was filed on 05.03.1996. In I.A.No.1294 of 1996 in O.S.No.258 of 1996, the Court had passed an order of injunction restraining the 4th respondent from alienating the plaint schedule property. While the order of injunction was in force, the brother of the 4th respondent, on the strength of a power of attorney executed by the 4th respondent in his favour on 5.3.1996, the day on which the order of injunction was issued, transferred the plaint schedule property in favour of the appellant, his wife, as per document No.3605 of 1996 (Ext.X1). The document was executed and registered on 12.09.1996. The claim petitioner availed a loan from Palakkad District Co-operative Bank on 19.11.1996 by creating an equitable mortgage by deposit of Ext.X1 document. The files of the Bank, which were produced before the Court, show that the claim petitioner’s husband, Sri Vasavan, had procured the encumbrance certificate. It is seen from the file that the judgment debtor had himself taken back the power of attorney from the Registry on 25.03.1996.

3. The suit O.S.No.256 of 2018 was decreed on 30.07.1998. Earlier the Court had passed an order of attachment against the properties in I.A.No.2178 of 1998. Respondents 1 to 3 filed E.P.No.19 of 1999 on 25.01.1999 for the execution of the decree and realisation of the amount of maintenance ordered in I.A.No.3352 of 1996 pending suit and to provide maintenance to the decree holders from 03.03.1996, by the sale of the judgment debtor's property. The amount due on the date of the execution petition was computed as Rs.1,19,000/-. E.P.No.267 of 1999 was filed claiming maintenance arrears from February 1999 to October 1999, and E.P.No.81 of 2000 was filed for maintenance arrears due from November 1999 to March 2000. The appellant filed E.A.No.753 of 1999 praying for a declaration that she is the actual owner of the plaint schedule property and that the same cannot be attached in execution of the decree. An application was filed praying that the order attaching the plaint schedule property be lifted.

4. The petition schedule items in E.P.No.19 of 1999 are the decree schedule properties. The properties mentioned in E.P.Nos.267 of 1999 and 81 of 2000 belonged to the judgment debtor, and he had created documents of assignment in favour of the claim petitioner in E.A.Nos.463 of 2000 and 464 of 2000 after O.S.No.258 of 1996 was decreed. It appears that the claim petitioner in E.A.Nos.463 of 2000 and 464 of 2000 had married the judgment debtor/4th respondent, while the marriage between the 4th respondent and 1st respondent was subsisting. The court below had by a common order in E.A.No.753 of 1999 In E.P.No.19 of 1999, E.A.No.463 of 2000 in E.P.No.267 of 1999, and E.A.No.464 of 2000 in E.P.No.81 of 2000 dismissed all the claim petitions with cost to respondents 1 to 3. The court found that there had been an attempt to defeat the rights of the decree holders. It was found that sale deeds were executed while orders of injunction were in force and after the suit was decreed in favour of respondents 1 to 3. All the claim petitions have been preferred on the strength of sale deeds executed in such a manner. As far as the properties attached are concerned, the court clearly held that the same was sought to be transferred by the 4th respondent through his brother, who is the power of attorney holder, and that too in favour of his brother's wife, who is the appellant herein. The power of attorney was executed on the day on which the injunction order was passed, and the sale deeds were executed six months later, o