Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S.
Ajeena M.K., D/o. Dharmapalan – Appellant
Versus
Binoj, S/o. V.A. Balakrishnan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
EASWARAN S., J.
This appeal is at the instance of a claim petition an application under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant claimed title over the petition schedule property by virtue of a registered assignment in her favour by the second respondent herein on 26.08.2002. The first respondent took out execution proceedings for execution of judgment and decree in O.S.No.256 of 2006, which is a decree for recovery of money against the third respondent company, of which the second respondent is the Managing Director. The appellant claimed that the property absolutely vested in her by the transfer effected way back in 2002 and that the attachment before judgment obtained in O.S.No.256 of 2006 cannot operate against her interest. Thus, it was contended that as on the date of attachment, there is no interest subsisting on the petition schedule property in favour of the second respondent, who is the judgment debtor in the suit. The executing court, however, rejected the claim by holding that transfer under Ext.A1 is vitiated and is hit by Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and accordingly dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved, the appellant pre
The court determined that a pre-attachment transfer of property is valid if no evidence demonstrates fraud under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The sale deed was upheld as valid under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act due to the absence of any fraud.
Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C., which is extracted as adjudication of claims to or objections to attachment of property.
(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.(2) E....
Debt can be defined as an obligation to pay an ascertained sum of money, and therefore, a claim for compensation does not come within that purview.
A transfer made with knowledge of an attachment before judgment can be contested as fraudulent under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Transfers made during an injunction are void; claimants must prove bona fides as transferees to assert rights over attached property.
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 ....
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
