IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 3422 OF 2022 PETITIONER:

JASMINE JOSEPH AGED 39 YEARS W/O. JAISON MATHEW, MANIYAKKUPARA, VALIYATHOVALA, NEDUMKANDAM P.O, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI 685 553 BY ADVS.

LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS TOM E. JACOB RESPONDENTS:

1 THE SUB REGISTRAR UDUMBANCHOLA, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI 685

515

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE OFFICE, UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI 685 553

3 M/S. KLM NIDHI LTD, KLM TOWER, COLLEGE ROAD, KOTHAMANGALAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SREERANJINI R, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O. VINOD H, RESIDING AT EDAYAPUREDDATHU CHALIL HOUSE, ENANALLOOR P.O, KALAMPOOR PIN 686 673

4 BENNY JOSEPH AGED 46 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, ULLATTIL HOUSE, VALIYATHOVALA P.O, PAMPADUMPARA, IDUKKI, 685 514

5 SHANTI BENNY AGED 40 YEARS W/O. BENNY JOSEPH, ULLATTIL HOUSE, VALIYATHOVALA P.O, PAMPADUMPARA, IDUKKI 685 514 OTHER PRESENT:

SMT. MABLE .C .KURIAN SR.G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner asserts that she is the owner of the property involved in this case and that she purchased it through Ext.P1 from respondents 4 and 5 on 25.11.2019. She submits that, on the strength of the said transaction, the transfer of Registry of the property in question has already been effected in her favour and has remitted land tax on it.

2. The petitioner says that, however, when she obtained Ext.P5 Encumbrance Certificate for the purpose of servicing a loan which she has already obtained, it was revealed that Entry No.4 therein, reflects an attachment over the property in favour of the 3^rd respondent, which is stated to be a Company. She points out that, this attachment, as evident from Ext.P5, has been made only on 07.09.2021 on the strength of Ext.P3 order, which itself is dated 30.07.2021. She thus contends that since the attachment was much after she purchased the property, the impugned Entry in Ext.P5 is illegal and unlawful and prays that same be directed to be effaced.

3. I have heard Sri.Liji J. Vadakedom, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Mable C. Kurian, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents.

3. Even though notices from this Court has been validly served on respondents 3 and 4, they have chosen not to appear in person or to be represented through counsel; inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to offer in answer to the various allegations of the petitioner and that they do not stand in the way of reliefs being granted to him as prayed for. As far as respondent No.5 is concerned, the endorsement on file is that she has not yet received the notice, but it is relevant that the 4^th respondent - who has done so - is her own husband, who is also a co-owner. In any event of the matter, since respondents 4 and 5 have already sold the property, I am certain that this Court will be justified in disposing of the matter even in the absence of respondent No.5.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.Mable C.

Kurian, submitted that the impugned Entry in Ext.P5 has been recorded because the competent Civil Court had issued Ext.P3 order. She submitted that, therefore, if this Court is inclined to find otherwise, the Sub Registrar will have no objection in effacing it.

5. The materials on record would reveal that the petitioner purchased the property on 25.11.2019 through Ext.P1; while the 3^rd respondent obtained an attachment over it through Ext.P3, only on

30.07.2021.

6. It is now well settled, through a bevy of judgments of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an attachment subsequent to the purchase can never bind the petitioner.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the 1^st respondent – Sub Registrar to immediately efface Entry No