Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN, J
Jose S/o Francis – Appellant
Versus
V.P. Devassy S/o Pailoth – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the revision petitioner is the 2nd judgment debtor in E.P.No.260/2005 in O.S. No.435/2001 on the files of the Principal Subordinate Judge’s Court, Irinjalakkuda, where from RFA No.134/2005 has been originated. Respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff/decree holder and respondent No.2 is defendant/1st judgment debtor.
2. In this civil revision petition, the revision petitioner impugns order dated 29.05.2010 in E.P.No.260/2005, passed by the execution court, on the finding that the objection raised by the revision petitioner/2nd respondent contending that the property was not liable to be proceeded against the decree debt in respect of the 1st judgment debtor, who is his mother, as unsustainable.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
4. To be on the facts, an agreement in writing had been entered into between respondents 1 and 2, who are the plaintiff and the defendant in O.S.No.435/2001, to construct a house in the plaint schedule property at the rate of Rs.488/- per sq.ft. and according to the 1st respon
A transfer of property made with intent to defeat creditors is voidable, and a donee of the whole property is liable for the donor's debts at the time of the gift.
Gift donees are liable for donor's debts only up to the value of the property received, ensuring liability does not escape during fraudulent transfers.
A universal donee is liable for the debts due or liabilities by the donor at the time of the gift to the extent of the properties and not necessary to file suit.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that transfers of immovable property made with the intent to defeat or delay creditors are voidable under Section 53 (1) of the Transfer of Prop....
Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act protects maintenance rights against gratuitous transfers, applicable to all, irrespective of religion.
Attachment of property in execution of a money decree is improper if property was transferred to legal heirs before the decree and the decree did not relate to property rights.
Parties who invest in properties without knowledge of prior agreements can retain rights under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, despite the existence of a decree.
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
