This execution first appeal challenged the District Court's order granting execution against a gift deed executed by the appellant's husband. The High Court held the deed was a fraudulent transaction aimed at defeating a hire purchase agreement and dismissed the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed without finding any ground to entertain it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/9TH KARTHIKA, 1938
Ex.FA.No. 34 of 2016 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 186/2015 IN E.P.No.75/2005 of DISTRICT COURT,THALASSERY DATED 28.7.2016
APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITIONER:
UPPAN MAKKAN MERCY SAM D/O.JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS, KIZHAKKETHARAPPEL, ARIVILANJAPOYIL P.O., UDHAYAGIRI, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE
SRI.G.GIREESH
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
V.CHITAMBARESH & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
Ex.F.A.No.34 OF 2016
-------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016
JUDGMENT
Chitambaresh, J.
Ext.A1 gift deed dated 29.10.1999 in favour of the appellantwife by the 2nd respondent-husband was much after the incurring of the debt by the 2nd respondent under the hire purchase agreement dated 18.9.1997. It appears that the 2nd respondent had purchased a Mahindra jeep under a hire purchase agreement with the 1st respondent who later filed an arbitration petition on 20.9.1999. Ext.A1 gift deed was executed on the eve of the award passed in the arbitration case on 31.1.2000 and that too in favour of his wife by the 2nd respondent hirer. We are convinced that the gift deed is a fraudulent transaction hit by Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. [See Chumar v. Alima (1998 (1) KLT 101) ].
We do not find any ground to entertain this appeal and the
same is dismissed.
Sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE
Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
dsn
//True copy
P.S. to Judge//
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal filing under a gift deed executed during pending arbitral proceedings is maintainable.
Whether the gift deed is a fraudulent transaction under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chumar v. AlimaExplained¶21
Chumar v. Alima (1998 (1) KLT 101)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
UPPAN MAKKAN MERCY SAM D/O.JOSEPH
M/S. ICDS LIMITED
UPPAN MAKKAN SAM S/O.KURYAKODE
V.CHITAMBARESH
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
