KOMAL Vs. MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from a common order passed in three claim applications, E.A.Nos. 568, 569 and 570 of 1991 in execution of a decree in E.P.No. 20 of 1991 in O.S. No. 38 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Palakkad. These applications under O.21 R.58 of the Code of Civil Procedure were filed by the appellants in these appeals, who are the wives of the judgment debtors. The common first respondent in all the appeals is the decree holder, who filed the suit and obtained a decree against respondents 1 to 4, who are the judgment debtors.

(2.) The decree in O.S. No. 38 of 1981 was one for realisation of damages, obtained on 11.10.1983. In execution of the said decree, properties belonged to respondents 2 to 4 were attached. The respondents 2 to 4 executed three sale deeds on 27.12.1990 in favour of the appellants. The appeal filed by respondents 2 to 3 before this court against the decree was dismissed by this court on 28.5.1990. Consequently, attachment was ordered on 3.1.1991. The judgment debtors thereupon raised the plea of no means and that plea was turned down and arrest was ordered against them. The revision petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by this court on 7.2.1992. The present claim petitions filed by the appellants were resisted by the decree holder contending that the sale deeds executed by respondents 2 to 4 in favour of the appellants are sham transactions and they were created with fraudulent intention of defeating the decree obtained by him. He further pleaded that there was no consideration for the sale deeds executed in favour of the appellants.

(3.) The learned counsel for appellants argued that the court below ought not to have applied the decision in Sultan Ahmad v. Rashid Ahmad (AIR 1990 All. 47) in the facts of this case. He further points out that the maxim 'pari declicto potior est conditio possidentis' is the base for-the above decision but it is not applicable to the facts of the present case.