FAIZAL KHAN Vs. N.HASEENA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim petitioner in EA No.63 of 2013 in EP No.120 of 2009 in OP No.1191 of 2006 on the file of Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant herein, impugning the order dtd. 16/2/2015.

(2.) The appellant filed EA No.63 of 2013 for lifting the attachment over five cents of property comprised in Survey No.2659/3 of Muttathara village, which he had purchased as per sale deed No.2011/11, from the 6th respondent, who is the husband of the 1st respondent. He had made due enquiries before purchasing that property, and finding no encumbrance, he purchased the same, paying full consideration. But, when he approached the village office for remitting basic tax, he came to know that the said property was attached through court proceedings on 6/9/2011. On enquiry, he came to know that the 1st respondent and her children filed OP No.1191 of 2006 against the 6th respondent-husband for monetary reliefs including maintenance. A decree was passed in their favour on 5/1/2009, and the liability under the decree was around Rs.11.45 lakhs. The decree holders filed EP No.120 of 2009 for executing the decree, and attachment was sought over the five cents of property owned by the 6th respondent. Attachment was ordered on 1/9/2011 and it was effected on 6/9/2011.

(3.) According to the appellant, he was a bonafide purchaser and he paid the entire consideration. He had no knowledge about the OP filed by the wife and children of the 6th respondent, and he was unaware of the decree passed in that OP. So, according to him, the transfer of property in his favour is not hit by Sec. 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. That property was attached only on 6/9/2011, whereas he had purchased that property for valid consideration on 2/6/2011. Hence he filed EA No.63 of 2013 for lifting the attachment.