LAWS(KER)-1987-3-21

MOHAMMEDUNNY AZEEZ Vs. GOPAL CO

Decided On March 06, 1987
MOHAMMEDUNNY AZEEZ Appellant
V/S
GOPAL CO. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents herein obtained a money decree against the judgment debtor by name K. Abdulla. Pending suit there was an attachment before judgment of the immovable property belonging to the original judgment debtor. The attachment before judgment was effected on 25-3-1983. Decree holder filed EA 289/86 for appointment of receiver for the building situated in the attached properties and to collect the income particularly from the tenants in possession. The application was objected by judgment debtors 2 and 5. Overruling the objections the court ordered appointment of receiver. At that stage, on behalf of the appellants their power-of-attorney holder filed EA No. 454/86 praying that the order of appointment of receiver may be set aside. They contended that as per registered document No. 1296/84 legal representatives of the original judgment debtor had sold the entire property to them for a consideration of Rs.6 lakhs. The Court below dismissed the application. Hence this appeal.

(2.) The amount claimed in the execution petition is Rs.17,695-31. Though the immovable property belonging to the judgment debtor had already been attached before judgment, decree holder successfully sought appointment of receiver for the building which fetches considerable amount of rent. This was done overruling the objections of two of the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor. It appears that the attachment was not noticed in Ext.A4 encumbrance certificate. PW.1 claims to be the power-of-attorney holder of the appellants who filed claim petition and sought the order appointing receiver to be vacated. That was on the strength of sale deed No. 1296/84 allegedly executed in their favour by the legal representatives of the judgment debtor. Ext.A1 is only a photostat copy of the sale deed. It is not a certified copy. PW.1 has no personal knowledge about the document in as much as he is not a witness. It is significant to note that the claimants are none other than the sons inlaw of the deceased judgment debtor. According to PW.1, total monthly rent of the building is Rs.4,150/-. Ext.B1 is the attachment order and Ext.B2 is a copy of the attachment schedule and Ext.B3 is a copy of the order.

(3.) S.64 of the Code reads thus: