Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
BINDHU – Appellant
Versus
SALOMI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.B.Snehalatha, J.
In this appeal, appellants assail the order of the Family Court, Kottarakkara in E.A.No.87/2022 in E.A.No.46/2021 in E.P. No.43/2018, by which it dismissed their petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC).
2. The case of the appellants is that by virtue of Ext.A1 sale deed dated 20.4.2007 of SRO Kottarakkara, Sri.Mohanan and late Lillykutty jointly purchased the petition schedule property having an extent of 23.47 Ares comprised in Resurvey No.26/9/2 in Mylom village from one Mr.Sreedharan. 1st appellant/1st claim petitioner is the wife of Mohanan, who is abroad. 2nd appellant/2nd claim petitioner is the legal heir of Lillykutty. Appellants/claim petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. On 02.07.2022, when a surveyor, an Advocate Commissioner and Amin deputed from the Family Court, Kottarakkara visited the petition schedule property, appellants/claim petitioners came to know that there was a suit as O.S.118/2005 filed by R1 and R2 against R3 Daniel and they had obtained an ex-parte decree against R3 and in E.P.43/2018 in O.S.118/2005, the Family Court, Kottarakkara executed
A party cannot assert ownership or set aside property attachments if the property was previously alienated during a court-ordered attachment, regardless of purported ignorance of such order.
Transfers made during an injunction are void; claimants must prove bona fides as transferees to assert rights over attached property.
Order 21 Rule 58(1) of CPC reads adjudication of claims to, or objections to attachment of, property.
The main legal point established is that property conveyed to a Defendant's wife can be attached to satisfy a decree if the conveyance was done to evade execution, and legal heirs are liable to satis....
Possession at the time of attachment is critical for claims; ex-parte decrees obtained collusively are not binding on decree holders.
whether Section 35 of the Act is mandatory or directory the sale held in violation of the said provision is only illegal but not a nullity and therefore, it can be set aside only in the manner and th....
Order 21, Rule 58 CPC deals with adjudication of claims or objections with regard to properties attached either directly or indirectly between the parties to the proceedings.
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
