JYOTHI Vs. SATHYABHAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant in E.A.No.753 of 1999, E.P.No.19 of 1999, and O.S.No.258 of 1996, on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad, has challenged the rejection of the claim in this appeal.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 3 filed O.S.No.258 of 1996 against the 4threspondent claiming maintenance. The 1st respondent is the wife of the 4threspondent and respondents 2 and 3 are the children of respondents 1 and 4. The suit was filed on 5/3/1996. In I.A.No.1294 of 1996 in O.S.No.258 of 1996, the Court had passed an order of injunction restraining the 4threspondent from alienating the plaint schedule property. While the order of injunction was in force, the brother of the 4th respondent, on the strength of a power of attorney executed by the 4threspondent in his favour on 5/3/1996, the day on which the order of injunction was issued, transferred the plaint schedule property in favour of the appellant, his wife, as per document No.3605 of 1996 (Ext.X1). The document was executed and registered on 12/9/1996. The claim petitioner availed a loan from Palakkad District Co-operative Bank on 19/11/1996 by creating an equitable mortgage by deposit of Ext.X1 document. The files of the Bank, which were produced before the Court, show that the claim petitioner's husband, Sri Vasavan, had procured the encumbrance certificate. It is seen from the file that the judgment debtor had himself taken back the power of attorney from the Registry on 25/3/1996.

(3.) The suit O.S.No.256 of 2018 was decreed on 30/7/1998. Earlier the Court had passed an order of attachment against the properties in I.A.No.2178 of 1998. Respondents 1 to 3 filed E.P.No.19 of 1999 on 25/1/1999 for the execution of the decree and realisation of the amount of maintenance ordered in I.A.No.3352 of 1996 pending suit and to provide maintenance to the decree holders from 3/3/1996, by the sale of the judgment debtor's property. The amount due on the date of the execution petition was computed as Rs.1,19,000.00. E.P.No.267 of 1999 was filed claiming maintenance arrears from February 1999 to October 1999, and E.P.No.81 of 2000 was filed for maintenance arrears due from November 1999 to March 2000. The appellant filed E.A.No.753 of 1999 praying for a declaration that she is the actual owner of the plaint schedule property and that the same cannot be attached in execution of the decree. An application was filed praying that the order attaching the plaint schedule property be lifted.