A conditional order of property attachment is effective regardless of notification to the Registrar, and petitioners must pursue remedies in the Family Court.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioners assail Ext.P6 order of the learned Family Court, Thiruvalla, arguing that the findings of the said Court - dismissing their application for lifting of attachment of the property in question - are illegal and unlawful.

2. Sri.S.Nirmal – learned counsel for the petitioners, made two arguments, namely : (a) that the alleged interim attachment over the property, stated to have been issued on 10.03.2023, was not known to his clients and was not intimated to the Registrar; and (b) that the aforesaid alleged order of interim attachment did not take the property in question.

3. Smt.Rhea Ann Mathai - learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, on the other hand, submitted that, the afore contentions are untenable because, as has been correctly found by the learned Family Court, the entire property of the 2^nd respondent, including the one involved in this case, was attached on 10.03.2023.

4. When we examine Ext.P6, we notice that the only evidence on record are the Sale Deed, Tax Receipt, Possession Certificate and ‘Thandaper’ Account of the property in question.

5. The petitioners assert that they purchased the property from the 2^nd respondent on 20.03.2023; but the learned Family Court has held, based on records, there was a conditional order of attachment over it on 10.03.2023. 6. Sri.Anil S.Raj – learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, submitted that the petitioners are justified in approaching this Court because they have been sold the property, which is a small area in comparison to the extent attached. He added that the presently attached property would be more than sufficient to satisfy the claim of the petitioners.

7. As indicated above, the specific argument of Sri.S.Nirmal is that the conditional order of attachment was not known to his clients; and that, in fact, the same did not encompass the property in law.

8. As regards the first limb of the afore argument, it is well known, going by the Statutory Scheme, that it is not mandatory for a conditional order of attachment to be intimated to the Sub Registrar’s Office to render it effective. As regards the second limb of the argument, such contention was never raised before the learned Family Court; and this is admitted.

9. Obviously, if the petitioners have a case of that nature, their remedy ought to have been to move the learned Family Court appropriately; and, without doing so, they could not have approached this Court through this Original Petition.

10. Presumably being aware of the mind of this Court, Sri.S.Nirmal submitted that, if this Court is not inclined to grant relief to his clients in this Original Petition, then liberty may be reserved to them to move the learned Family Court, through an apposite review or such other course.

11. We certainly cannot find favour with the contentions of the petitioner qua Ext.P6 at this time. We are, therefore, persuaded to dismiss this Original Petition.

12. That said, however, this does not mean that, if there are remedies available in law to the petitioners - including on the contention that the property was not involved or part of the interim order of attachment dated 10.03.2023 - they can certainly move the learned Family Court appositely.

With the afore clarification, this Original Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-