Dismissed

T. Divakaran v. Kerala Stae Electronic

Kerala HC1 Mar 2016Ex.FA/7/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an execution first appeal arising under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC, the High Court dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit. The court held that the buyer's title was weak because the vendor had purchased subject to prior attachment, and that any irregularity in the order's form was cured by substantial compliance.

What did the court decide?

The execution first appeal was dismissed.

T. Divakaran Vs Kerala Stae Electronic — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/11TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶7

Ex.FA.No. 7 of 2016 ()

¶8

(ORDER DATED 22.12.2015 IN EA.411/12 IN EP.238/11 IN OS.306/94 OF SUB COURT PALAKKAD)

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/CLAIM PETITIONER:

¶10

T. DIVAKARAN

¶11

S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, KIZHAKKE THONUR HOUSE, PARUVASSERY VADAKKANCHERY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SMT.K.R.MONISHA

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/DECREE HOLDER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:

¶14

KERALA STAE ELECTRONIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (KELTRON) VELLAYAMABALAM, KOWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033

¶15

M/S.C.K.C.B. AGENCIES REPRESENTED BY CHAMUNNI, HOUSE NO.590, VII WARD ANJUMOORTHY P.O., VADAKKENCHERY-II VILLAGE ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 682.

¶16

THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ANTONY DOMINIC & A. HARIPRASAD, JJ.

¶18

Ex.F.A.No.7 of 2016

¶19

----------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2016

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Antony Dominic, J.

¶22

1.This appeal is filed by the claim petitioner who filed E.A.411/12 in E.P.238/11 in O.S.306/94. The said application was filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure and by the impugned order, the same was dismissed by the trial court. It is aggrieved by this order, the appeal is filed.

¶23

2.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and considered the submissions made. Thrust of the contentions raised before us is that the appellant being a bonafide purchaser of the property, the Sub Court erred in dismissing the application under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC. However, in the impugned order itself, the court below has entered into a finding that the appellant's vendor Sri.Swaminathan himself has purchased the property fully knowing that the property was under attachment by an order passed on 18.5.1994. Once the vendor of the appellant himself is having such a weak title, the appellant's title

¶24

¶25

ExFA.7/16

¶26

also is weak and the appellant cannot raise the contention that he is a bonafide purchaser of the property.

¶27

3.Another contention raised by the appellant is that the conditional order of the court was not issued in proper form and that the same is a material irregularity. In so far as this contention is concerned, learned Sub Judge has rightly held that the forms contained in the appendix to the CPC do not form part of the order and that if there is substantial compliance with the forms, that would suffice.

¶28

We do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal fails and is therefore dismissed.

¶29

kkb.

¶30

/True copy/

T. Divakaran v. Kerala Stae Electronic

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Divakaran v. Kerala Stae Electronic

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.a.Peter Vs C.v.Ayyappan

C.N Shyamala Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Kasim @ Kasmi Vs N.P.Haris

Gopakumar Vs Gopalakrishnan

Elamma Vs St. Philominas Sadhujana

P.Chandran Vs Yeshoda Divakaran