Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner, who is the 1st respondent in O.P.No.147 of

2021 on the file of the Family Court, Nedumangad, has filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to quash Ext.P3 order dated 08.04.2022 of the Family Court, Nedumangad in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in that original petition, which was a claim petition filed by the 3rd respondent herein, for lifting the order of attachment in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in respect of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-03/V-8087 (previous No.KL-05/U-

7651).

2. After considering the rival contentions, the Family Court allowed I.A.No.3 of 2021, by Ext.P3 order dated

08.04.2022. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of that order read thus;

“9. Now the learned counsel for the 1st counter petitioner would submit that Ext.A1 document is false and fabricated and by which no consideration has been passed. Further, it is a collusive agreement executed by the counter petitioners 1 and 2 and as such it is to be rejected. Now it is necessary to see the case of the claim petitioner that he has purchased the vehicle and permit for a total consideration of Rs.14,00,000/- and the entire sale consideration has been passed over to the 2nd counter petitioner and that is evident from Ext.A1 agreement. Further to corroborate Ext.A1 agreement all the documents relating to the vehicle has been transferred and for showing the genuineness the claim petitioner produced copy of RC book as Ext.A2, copy of fitness certificate as Ext.A3, copy of policy certificate as Ext.A4, copy of stage carriage permit as Ext.A5, copy of letter issued by Sakthi Finance showing hypothecation of vehicle, copy of cash receipt issued from Motor Vehicle Department as Ext.A7, copy of pollution certificate as Ext.A8 and copy of authorisation letter issued by the claim petitioner as Ext.A9. Now the learned counsel for the claim petitioner would submit the original of these documents are in the vehicle and it is necessary for the daily use and as such he produced the copy of said documents. Now the 1st counter petitioner has no case that the original documents were not handed over to the claim petitioner as alleged. The only contention is that Ext.A1 is false and fabricated and it is the result of collusion between the counter petitioners 1 and 2. In that aspect I have perused Ext.A1 agreement and documents produced by the claim petitioner. As per Ext.A1 document the schedule vehicle has been sold to the claim petitioner by the 2nd counter petitioner. Now the entire documents with respect to the schedule vehicle have been handed over to the claim petitioner and he is in the possession of the vehicle and its documents. Now, the 2nd counter petitioner who is the 1st respondent in the original petition did not dispute Ext.A1 agreement and the case of the claim petitioner. On the other hand, she is admitting the case of the claim petitioner and also Ext.A1 agreement. Then the 2nd counter petitioner would admit and support the case of the claim petitioner that the vehicle has been sold to the claimant. There is no reason to disbelieve the case of the claim petitioner. Here it is necessary to see the pleading in the original petition and in para No.17 of the original petition it is averred that the 1st respondent has sold the A schedule vehicle to the 5th respondent for Rs.14,00,000/-. As per the pleading in the original petition the 1st counter petitioner herein was aware of the sale of A schedule vehicle but only mistake is that as per the pleading the vehicle was sold to the 5th respondent. But in fact the vehicle was sold to the claim petitioner as per Ext.A1 agreement.

10. Now, as per the documents and pleadings of the parties it is evident that A schedule vehicle has been sold even before the institution of this case and as such the 1st counter petitioner has no authority to get an injunction with respect to A schedule vehicle. So it is only just and