Proper identification of property in attachment cases is crucial; discrepancies in documentation can impact the legitimacy of the attachment.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P7 order, dismissing his application for lifting the attachment over the property that they had purchased from the defendant in O.S.No.227 of 2015 of the Munsiff’s Court, Kannur. O.S.No.227 of 2015 was filed by the first respondent herein against the second respondent for recovery of advance amount. In the suit, the property of the defendant was attached at the instance of the plaintiff on 04.05.2015. While so, the suit was dismissed for default on 08.12.2015. According to the petitioners, they had purchased the property prior to the attachment, i.e, on 18.04.2015, as evidenced by Ext.P4.

2. The suit having been dismissed for default and no effort taken by the plaintiff to get the suit restored to file, petitioners moved an application for lifting the attachment.

The application was rejected finding the document number of the assignor/defendant was mentioned differently in the petition for attachment and the petition for lifting the attachment. In the application for attachment, the number is shown as 3953/2010 of SRO Kadachira and in the application for lifting the attachment, it is mentioned as 3973 of 2010 of SRO Kadachira. The court below therefore held that the property attached and the property purchased by the petitioners are different. Herein, petitioners have produced certified copy of the title deed of the assignor/second respondent as Ext.P8. From the document it is clear that the correct number is 3973/2010 of SRO kadachira (Ext.P8). The petitioners have also produced copy of the document bearing No.3953 /2010 of SRO Kadachira (Ext.P9), a perusal of which reveals that the parties and the property therein are entirely different. In such circumstances, it is only appropriate to consider the petitioners application for lifting the attachment on merits.

In the result, the Original Petition is allowed. Ext.P7 order is set aside and the court below is directed to reconsider the petitioners request for lifting the attachment, with reference to Exts.P8 and P9 documents. The certified copies of the documents produced in this original petition and marked as Exts.P8 and P9, shall forthwith be returned to the petitioners.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

RK

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1883/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.227 OF

2015 DATED 28.4.2015 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANNUR.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ATTACHMENT BEFORE THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.5.2015 IN I.A.NO.937/2015 OF VACATION COURT, THALASSERY AND THE PETITION FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 28.4.2015.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.12.2015 IN O.S.NO.227 OF 2015 OF THE PRL.

MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANNUR.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1322/2015 DATED 18.4.2015 OF SRO, KADACHIRA EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT ORDER COMMUNICATED TO THE S.R.O., KADACHIRA DATED 5.5.2015.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COY OF THE MEMO DATED 18.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.S.NO.227/2015 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANNUR .

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.2.2020 IN MEMO DATED 20.12.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL.

MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANNUR.

EXHIBIT P8 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3973/2010 OF SRO,KADACHIRA DATED

08.12.2010 EXHIBIT P9 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3953/2010 OF SRO, KADACHIRA DATED

08.12.2010