Dismissed

Ravindranathan Nair v. M.a.Thomas

Kerala HC2 Sept 2021Ex.FA/7/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This execution first appeal by the father of the judgment debtor against attachment of property owned by the judgment debtor was dismissed. The court held the appeal lacks merit as the appellant had no right, title or interest in the property, and the lower court does not err in attaching the son's property. The appeal is dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed without costs.

Ravindranathan Nair Vs M.a.Thomas — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 11TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

EX.FA NO. 7 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA NO.6/2020 IN E.P. NO.35/2017 IN OS

¶7

130/2014 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

¶8

APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITIONER:

¶9

RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR AGED 82 YEARS S/O.NARAYANANPILLA, PUTHEN VEEDU, KIZHOOR KARA, MULAKKULAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KEEZHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 605.

¶10

BY ADVS. D.G.VIPIN SRI.KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY SMT.ANJANA JOSHI

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶12

M.A.THOMAS,AGED 55 YEARS S/O.V.A.ANDREWS, MUPPATHIYYIL HOUSE, NATTASSERY KARA, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, PIN - 686 010.

¶13

BY ADV JOSSY KURIAN

¶14

THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

EX.FA NO. 7 OF 2021 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The father of the Judgment Debtor came up with an application under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the execution stage, against the attachment over the property for the decree amount which is admittedly a part of sale consideration given as advance in connection with a contract for sale entered into by the plaintiff with the defendant, the son of claimant.

¶18

The property, admittedly, stands in the name of the defendant, the son of the claimant wherein a 2000 sq. feet building was also constructed. The extent of property comes to 8.9 Ares. It is further submitted that upset price fixed at Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) is not reflecting the value of the property and the structure constructed over it. But it is a ground available to the Judgment Debtor and those who are claiming under him and not the claimant of an application under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC. Nothing was brought to the notice of this Court showing any right, title or interest over the property with the claimant, father. Hence the appeal lacks in merits, deserves only a dismissal, I do so, but without costs.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

ajt

Ravindranathan Nair v. M.a.Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindranathan Nair v. M.a.Thomas

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

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs Nidhimon Mathew

Kannadasan Vs Vallyamma

M.K.Raghavan Vs Moodan Kuthirummal Karthiyani (Deaf and Dump)

R.Mohanan Nair Vs Sudhakaran Pillai

Jaijo John @ Jaimon Vs Shamnaz

Thankappan Vs Shamnaz