Petitioner challenged the attachment of joint family property under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC in an original suit. The court held the second attachment illegal, set aside the impugned order, and withdrew the attachment. The first attachment remains valid.
Impugned order set aside and order of attachment withdrawn.
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 K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2016/2ND MAGHA, 1937
OP(C).No. 2828 of 2013 (O)
--------------------------OS 111/2012 of PRL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY
PETITIONER :
------------------
SUGESH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. M.C VASU, RESIDING AT MULLAN HOUSE, ERANHOLI AMSOM, CHUNGAM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK
BY ADVS.SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SMT.C.S.RAJANI
RESPONDENTS :
----------------------
1. POOVADAN KARUNAKARAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. ACHUTHAN, WORKSHOP MECHANIC, RESIDING AT KUNDATHIL HOUSE, ERANHOLI P.O., PONNIAM WEST, THALASSERY TALUK - 670641
2. BEENA, AGED 51 YEARS,
3. LEENA, AGED 48 YEARS,
4. RAJESH, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O M.C VASU, RESIDING AT MULLAN HOUSE ERANHGOLI AMSOM, CHUNGAM DESOM THALASSERY TALUK 670107
5. SHEENA, AGED 45 YEARS,
6. SEENA, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O M.C. VASU, RESIDING AT MULLAN HOUSE ERANHGOLI AMSOM, CHUNGAM DESOM THALASSERY TALUK 670107
OP(C).No. 2828 of 2013 (O)
7. VINESH, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. M.C VASU, RESIDING AT MULLAN HOUSE, ERANHGOLI AMSOM, CHUNGAM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK 670107
8. JINA, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O. M.C VASU, RESIDING AT MULLAN HOUSE, ERANHGOLI AMSOM, CHUNGAM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK 670107
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.C.KHALID SMT.P.VANDANA
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
OP(C).No. 2828 of 2013 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 3 TO 7 & 10 TO EXT.P1.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT REFERRED TO EXT.P1.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.
O.P.(C)No.2828 of 2013
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the 7th defendant and respondents 2 to 8 are his co-defendants. The first respondent is the plaintiff. The suit is for recovery of about Rs.One lakh. Under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure the property of the first defendant having an extent of 13.38 cents with a house thereon was attached. Thereafter, again, on the application of the first respondent the court attached the property of the petitioner and other codefendants. This is challenged.
O.P.(C)No.2828 of 2013 2
more than Rs.Ten lakhs. The second attachment is illegal. It is
liable to be set aside.
In the result, this Original Petition is allowed. The impugned
order is set aside. The order of attachment is withdrawn.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE
cms
/True copy/ P.S.to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether attachment of joint property under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is illegal or a punishment.
Whether the second attachment by the court was lawful.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sugesh
PoovanDan Karunakaran
Beena
Leena
Rajesh
Sheena
K.Abraham Mathew
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
