The High Court held that a subsequent transferee of a property by gratuitous transfer remains bound by the original contract's liabilities. Dismissing the appeal against the lower court's order granting return of advance with interest.
The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
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 P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1944
RFA NO. 621 OF 2006
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 27-05-2006 IN OS 246/2000 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA.
APPELLANT/2ND DEFENDANT :
*1 FR.K.C.SAMUEL (DIED), MOUNT SEENAT, PADINJATTUM MIZHAKKUM MURI, SURANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUR TALUK.
ADDITIONAL APPELLANT IMPLEADED :
2 JOHN GEORGE, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O GEORGE P.JOHN, PUTHEN PARAMBIL, VEEYAPURAM P.O, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA, DISTRICT-690 514.
THE LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 2ND APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DATED 25/05/2022 IN IA 1/2021.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.D.SHENOY (SR.) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP.
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS/1ST DEFENDANT :
1 SARAMMA KURUVILA, (ERRONEOUSLY SHOWN AS SARASAMMA KURUVILA IN JUDGMMENT), KARUNALAYIL HOUSE, KARUVATTA, VADAKKUM MURI, KARUVATTA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY.
2 GEORGE P.JOHN PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, VEEYAPURAM MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER SR. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA No.621 of 2006 2
P.SOMARAJAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------R.F.A No.621 of 2006
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of May, 2022.
J U D G M E N T
It is against the judgment and decree of the trial
court granting alternative remedy of return of advance amount with interest, the additional appellant came up on the reason that the charge created by the trial court over the property, which is the subject of the contract for sale is not proper since he is the subsequent transferee of the property. Admittedly, he had obtained the property under a gratuitous transfer, hence would stand bound by the obligation and the liabilities arising out of the contract. Hence, the appeal fails, dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE
amk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal lies against the grant of alternative remedy for return of advance amount with interest.
JOHN GEORGE
SARAMMA KURUVILA
GEORGE P.JOHN
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
