THEKKINIYAKATH ALI Vs. MANAYIL VEETTIL AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Manayil Veettil And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
B.M. Thulasidas, J. -
(1.)The order on I.A. no. 1852 of 1993 in O. S. No. 208 of 1993 of the Sub Court Tirur is under challenge in this revision. The above petition was filed by respondents 1 to 3 under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 and Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which the revision petitioner was the second respondent. The suit was filed by one Bava Haji, the fourth respondent herein, against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 67,200.00. He applied by I. A. No. 1776 of 1993 for attachment of lorry KEF 9570, alleging inter alia that it belonged to the petitioner, employed abroad, that he was trying to take it out of the Court's jurisdiction and sell it to deprive him of the fruits of the decree. The vehicle was then in the custody of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tirur in connection with a criminal complaint filed by his father against one Mohanan. The Court below passed a prohibitory order under Order XXI Rule 52. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. 1852 of 1993, it was stated by respondents 1 to 3 herein that the lorry, which belonged to the revision petitioner, was sold to one Salim on 1-5-1993. The relevant documents, including R.C. Book, were also handed over and necessary application also signed for effecting transfer in his name. While so on 5-9-93 Salim sold it to the third respondent, from whom the second respondent purchased it on 9-9-1993. He in turn sold it to the first respondent on 11-9-93. He is a bona fide purchaser for value and while in possession the vehicle was seized on a complaint filed by the petitioner's father against one Mohanan, to whom it was allegedly leased for nine months, which is a false story. The suit was instituted on a document fabricated in collusion between the petitioner and the fourth respondent to get possession of the vehicle, which had already been sold.
(2.)The learned Magistrate, in the first instance, passed an order to release the vehicle to the first respondent, from whom it had been seized. But the order was challenged by the petitioner in Cri. M.C. No. 2175 of 1993 before this Court and it was set aside, with a direction to abide by the verdict in the claim petition that was then pending before the Sub Court, Tirur. Eventually, by the impugned order, the petitioner's claim was rejected and that of respondents 1 to 3 upheld. The vehicle has been ordered to be returned to the first respondent, from whom it was seized.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.