MOHAMMED P.V. Vs. MANNIL ABDUL GADHAFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam, allowed I.A.No.2520 of 2017 in O.S.No.230 of 2016, which was filed under Order XXXVIII, Rule 8, read with Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As per that order, attachment of A to C schedule properties made by the court in I.A.No.4876 of 2016 on 27/2/2017 was lifted. The said order is under challenge in this appeal filed under Sec. 96 read with Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code.

(2.) O.S.No.230 of 2016 was filed by the 1st respondent seeking a decree of realisation of Rs.5.42 crores from respondent Nos.2 and 3. I.A.No.4876 of 2016 was filed by the 1 st respondent seeking attachment of A to C schedule properties belonging to respondent Nos.2 and 3. As per the order dtd. 27/2/2017 those properties were attached under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code. The 1st respondent, claiming that he came to know about the attachment when he obtained encumbrance certificates, filed I.A.No.2520 of 2017. He contended that he purchased the said properties as per Exts.A1 to A3 sale deeds much before the order of attachment and he being a bona fide purchaser, the attachment was illegal and liable to be lifted.

(3.) The 1st respondent resisted the said application by filing a counter. He contended that the transaction between the appellant and respondents Nos.2 and 3 took place much earlier and when he realised the deception perpetrated by respondents Nos.2 and 3 to extract money from him, he made complaints before the police. Investigation into the matter was eventually taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation in 2015 itself. Consequent to the dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail filed by them, respondent No.2 was arrested and detained in jail. It was much thereafter, in May 2016 alone, the 1st respondent purchased the petition schedule properties. He purchased knowing fully well about the transaction between the appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3. Having purchased the properties with the knowledge of the pendency of criminal cases against respondents No.2 and 3, and their liability towards the appellant, the transfers in favour of the 1st respondent are fraudulent transactions and unsustainable in law.